[_kbh_]

> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk?

If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world.

Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers?

Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.

[foverzar]

It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set.

> Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.

Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?

It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?

It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.

Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

[_kbh_]

> Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?

NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that.

My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth.

Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west.

I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there.

> It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?

Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?.

> It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.

> Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia.

If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.

[foverzar]

Ok, sorry I asked, should have expected such an ideologically exultant answer.

[_kbh_]

What’s your solution? Letting whoever has nukes rape, torture and genocide their way through whatever country they want?.

[foverzar]

Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse.

Otherwise it just feels like you are using random words with negative connotations just to sound impressive.

Spoiler: you don't, you sound like Putin when he starts talking of genocide of Russians in Ukraine. Ridiculous at best, disrespectful to victims of real genocides in general.

[_kbh_]

> Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse.

I’d suggest you look up the definition of genocide, because it’s not what you think it is. Thankfully the UN has entire page dedicated to this.

Here’s a link to the page. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

But for the sake of making this easy I’ll also quote it.

> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

> a. Killing members of the group;

> b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

> c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

> d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

> e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

We will focus on point e.

Below is an article where the Russian childrens ombudsman brags about how they have forcefully relocated children from Ukraine and changed their views.

https://news.yahoo.com/childrens-ombudsman-russian-federatio...

As for my claims of rape and torture, I’ll quote the UN OHCR report.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/09/update-chair-ind...

“The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons. The exposure to repeated explosions, crimes, forced displacement and separation from family members deeply affected their well-being and mental health.“.

> Otherwise it just feels like you are using random words with negative connotations just to sound impressive.

I’d suggest you educate yourself on the definitions you argue about, because it is clear you don’t know what they actually are.

> Spoiler: you don't, you sound like Putin when he starts talking of genocide of Russians in Ukraine. Ridiculous at best, disrespectful to victims of real genocides in general.

You sound like someone trying to excuse war crimes and genocide in Ukraine.

[blub]

The total economic war declared on Russia together with the arms shipments are the consequences.

Devastating response => Ukraine gets nuked again harder => more devastating response => NATO gets nuked => … => Armageddon.

[_kbh_]

The current sanctions and weapons have nothing to do with nukes, the west can go much harder on both if they wanted.

If you thinking Russia using a nuke wouldn’t cause there country to collapse internally due to the response your kidding yourself.

Russia has been threatening nukes for 8 months now and people have repeatedly crossed whatever line Russia drew in the sand.

That’s because Russia doesn’t want to nuke anyone cause they know the response will be devastating, what Russia wants to do is threaten nukes to get there way.