• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should NATO create a no-fly zone over Ukraine?

Should NATO create a no-fly zone over Ukraine?

  • Yes, NATO should create a full no-fly zone over Ukraine

    Votes: 9 23.1%

  • NATO should create a "humanitarian" no fly zone over certain sensitive areas only

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, NATO should not

    Votes: 30 76.9%
  • Total voters
    39
Josie said:
If Putin wanted to attack North America, he wouldn't go toward the Atlantic Ocean...................
Click to expand...
Oh, my friend. I've missed you so! So, here's a geography question, teach. If Putin drives west through Europe and ends up on the shores of both Spain and the UK, which ocean are they on the shore of?
 
Josie said:
And what do you think Putin would do if we started shooting down their planes?
Click to expand...
Fight back, but then he'd be taking on the entire western world. Not good odds.
 
lurchadams said:
Oh, my friend. I've missed you so! So, here's a geography question, teach. If Putin drives west through Europe and ends up on the shores of both Spain and the UK, which ocean are they on the shore of?
Click to expand...

Again, there’s A) not evidence that he wants to do that and B) no evidence that the Russian military could pull it off even if he wanted to.
 
vegas giants said:
What? What happened to comparisons to nazi Germany?????


You want to leave the madman putin in power??????


Should we have stopped at the german border?????
Click to expand...
Dude, you're ranting. Take a sip of your saki.. a bong hit - then a breath, then come back and we'll chat.
 
lurchadams said:
Fight back, but then he'd be taking on the entire western world. Not good odds.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter. No nation is going to sit back and just let a foreign power attack it without responding.

Not to mention, of course, that given Russian paranoia, any attack by the West is going to be seen as a precursor to a new Barbarossa. If you want to keep Putin in power that’s a damn good way to do it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Nope, because that would most likely cause World War Three, and it flat out is not worth the risk of global thermonuclear war.
Click to expand...

"Global thermonuclear war" is so 80's. That's not gonna happen. The days of "duck and cover" are long gone. Russia and America's nuclear stockpiles are a fraction of what they used to be, and the weapons that do remain are trained at military targets, not cities. And the modern nuke is much smaller than its 80's counterpart, precisely because they are meant to be more precision based.

Even in an all-out nuclear war with Russia, in 2022 that means around 10 million dead for NATO and the same number for Russia. Horrific, to be sure, but the yesteryear connotation you put on "global thermonuclear war" required a correction nonetheless.

In truth, WW3 would look a lot like WW2. MAD is actually a thing of the past. Horrible? Yes. But not as horrible as had the war been fought 30+ years ago.
 
lurchadams said:
Oh, my friend. I've missed you so! So, here's a geography question, teach. If Putin drives west through Europe and ends up on the shores of both Spain and the UK, which ocean are they on the shore of?
Click to expand...
Over the top bud. Fastest way to America
 
lurchadams said:
So, once you think Putin gets Ukraine he's going to stop? You sound like former Prime Minister Chamberlain.
Click to expand...
Putin isn't going to "get Ukraine." Putin's rinkydink army can barely mount an attack on Kyiv because their tanks get stuck in the mud and abandoned. The idea that he's going to make everyone in Switzerland start speaking Russian is laughable.

There is no reason to escalate and risk cataclysmic disaster. Russia is already going to lose this war.
 
Uncle_Phil said:
"Global thermonuclear war" is so 80's. That's not gonna happen. The days of "duck and cover" are long gone. Russia and America's nuclear stockpiles are a fraction of what they used to be, and the weapons that do remain are trained at military targets, not cities. And the modern nuke is much smaller than its 80's counterpart, precisely because they are meant to be more precision based.

Even in an all-out nuclear war with Russia, in 2022 that means around 10 million dead for NATO and the same number for Russia. Horrific, to be sure, but the yesteryear connotation you put on "global thermonuclear war" required a correction nonetheless.

In truth, WW3 would look a lot like WW2. MAD is actually a thing of the past. Horrible? Yes. But not as horrible as had the war been fought 30+ years ago.
Click to expand...
10 million dead


That's horrific
 
Josie said:
So you think World War 3 needs to start.
Click to expand...
I have expressed my opinion that Putin is incredibly outmatched by all western nations, I also don't think he's crazy enough to vaporize himself and millions of Russians by launching nukes. I say create the no fly zone, kick Putin's sorry ass in a conventional war, go home and have a beer.
 
lurchadams said:
Dude, you're ranting. Take a sip of your saki.. a bong hit - then a breath, then come back and we'll chat.
Click to expand...
I accept that your ww2 comparisons are ridiculous


So what time do you ship out?
 
lurchadams said:
I think it's ignorant of you and several others to think even Putin would risk certain mutual destruction by launching nukes, but you do you, my friend.
Click to expand...
Ever see what a trapped rat will do?

You clearly don't get it. You don't get it at all. Not everyone thinks as you which is why we have long personality profiles on every world leader.
Putin is a risk taker who believes in hitting so hard that there is a good chance you will be to frightened to hit back.
And, frankly, if he hits NYC, do we retaliate in world ending fashion?
Please, folks, all who post in the thread, do more reading. Honest. Some of the posts here are frighteningly stupid.
 
vegas giants said:
10 million dead


That's horrific
Click to expand...

It is, and I'm not downplaying it. It's unacceptably horrific. But people were brought up hearing about nuclear winter and about nuclear war being a global killer, and I'm just trying to educate on that.
 
lurchadams said:
I have expressed my opinion that Putin is incredibly outmatched by all western nations, I also don't think he's crazy enough to vaporize himself and millions of Russians by launching nukes. I say create the no fly zone, kick Putin's sorry ass in a conventional war, go home and have a beer.
Click to expand...
But you will be home sitting on the couch.....right?
 
Gatsby said:
Putin isn't going to "get Ukraine." Putin's rinkydink army can barely mount an attack on Kyiv because their tanks get stuck in the mud and abandoned. The idea that he's going to make everyone in Switzerland start speaking Russian is laughable.

There is no reason to escalate and risk cataclysmic disaster. Russia is already going to lose this war.
Click to expand...
Dude, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. PUTIN IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO LEVEL TOWNS AND KILL INNOCENTS UNTIL SOMEONE STOPS HIM. WE NEED TO STOP HIM. IT'S TIME TO STEP UP AND BE A MAN, SIR.
 
Uncle_Phil said:
It is, and I'm not downplaying it. It's unacceptably horrific. But people were brought up hearing about nuclear winter and about nuclear war being a global killer, and I'm just trying to educate on that.
Click to expand...
Will you be fighting in this war?
 
Josie said:
If Putin wanted to attack North America, he wouldn't go toward the Atlantic Ocean...................
Click to expand...

Why?

Let's hear this one.

This ought to be good.
 
"Should NATO create a n-"

No.
 
lurchadams said:
Dude, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. PUTIN IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO LEVEL TOWNS AND KILL INNOCENTS UNTIL SOMEONE STOPS HIM. WE NEED TO STOP HIM. IT'S TIME TO STEP UP AND BE A MAN, SIR.
Click to expand...
You typed it in all caps, so it must be true. I was against nuclear apocalypse until you pressed caps lock.
 
vegas giants said:
But you will be home sitting on the couch.....right?
Click to expand...
This will be our last conversation ever. Next time you engage someone with a brain and do this - this is what's going to happen. You really need to grow up.
 
lurchadams said:
Dude, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. PUTIN IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO LEVEL TOWNS AND KILL INNOCENTS UNTIL SOMEONE STOPS HIM. WE NEED TO STOP HIM. IT'S TIME TO STEP UP AND BE A MAN, SIR.
Click to expand...
Does WE include YOU?
 
Uncle_Phil said:
"Global thermonuclear war" is so 80's. That's not gonna happen. The days of "duck and cover" are long gone. Russia and America's nuclear stockpiles are a fraction of what they used to be, and the weapons that do remain are trained at military targets, not cities. And the modern nuke is much smaller than its 80's counterpart, precisely because they are meant to be more precision based.

Even in an all-out nuclear war with Russia, in 2022 that means around 10 million dead for NATO and the same number for Russia. Horrific, to be sure, but the yesteryear connotation you put on "global thermonuclear war" required a correction nonetheless.

In truth, WW3 would look a lot like WW2. MAD is actually a thing of the past. Horrible? Yes. But not as horrible as had the war been fought 30+ years ago.
Click to expand...

Why, because you don’t want it to? The nukes haven’t magically vanished, and Russia’s still got about six thousand or so warheads.....more than enough to turn a sizable chunk of America into dust.

Going “well, we’ll lose millions of people, but hey, we would have lost even more during the Cold War” is not, in fact, a reason to start World War Three.
 
Gatsby said:
You typed it in all caps, so it must be true. I was against nuclear apocalypse until you pressed caps lock.
Click to expand...
You have no intelligent argument to make at all - so you attack. It's a classic lowbrow tactic. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom