• 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
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...

How will he accomplish this?

🤡

So stupid as post.
 
lurchadams said:
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.
Click to expand...
Got it.

We need to fight and die for Ukraine means those other American heroes need to be the ones dying
 
noonereal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok.. I want to see you say it, professor. Regale us with your personal profile knowledge of Vlad. Tell us you're sure you know he's insane enough to launch nukes. You supercilious pseudo intellectuals who think they know it all crack me the **** up.. seriously.
 
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...
I think you are wrong.

As of 2019, the estimates were 91.5 MILLION in the first few hours.

www.icanw.org

New Study on US-Russia nuclear war: 91.5 million casualties in first few hours

www.icanw.org www.icanw.org
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Great plan - except that Russia has already stated that would be considered an act of war.
Click to expand...
Putin has already stated that sanctions are “akin” to a declaration of war.
 
Josie said:
If Putin wanted to attack North America, he wouldn't go toward the Atlantic Ocean...................
Click to expand...

I agree. He would go north and come down through Canada.
 
Josie said:
Um................................ *hands noonereal a map*
Click to expand...

Yeah, this was the kind of ignorance I expected. Maybe you ought to look at a globe 🌎 (hint!) And maybe you ought to consider that he has subs, right now, with nukes, in international waters just off the northeast and DC.

Honest, how can you post so ridiculous. Your posts could have been written by Sarah Palin herself.
 
lurchadams said:
Ok.. I want to see you say it, professor. Regale us with your personal profile knowledge of Vlad. Tell us you're sure you know he's insane enough to launch nukes. You supercilious pseudo intellectuals who think they know it all crack me the **** up.. seriously.
Click to expand...

You think Putin will tuck his tail and run home. Tell us you're sure you know he's sane enough to not launch nukes.
 
lurchadams said:
Tell us you're sure you know he's insane enough to launch nukes.
Click to expand...
Considering the scale of the disaster, the burden of proof should be on those asserting that they are sure he would NOT launch nukes. Even if you are 90% sure, that is a terrible expected value.
 
Josie said:
You think Putin will tuck his tail and run home. Tell us you're sure you know he's sane enough to not launch nukes.
Click to expand...
Wasn't talking to you. I see you're expecting me to overlook the fact you don't know the Oceans. You're a TEACHER for crying out loud!
 
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...

This could well be the post of the year.
I can't recall ever reading a more ridiculous post here. I mean it. Ever.
You are trying to educate.
Speechless. This leaves me speechless coming from you because the irony is so extreme.

Honest, I wish you well.
My advise to you, stop posting and instead read my posts here for edification.

Peace
 
Josie said:
You're on a public forum. You're talking to everyone unless you're in a private message.



:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nope. You know you did. What Ocean borders the UK and the west coast of Spain, Jose? Now, be honest and don't google it first!
 
Also keep in mind that nuclear war wouldn't necessarily happen all at once. I think people are imagining that Putin just gets fed up and decides to go all General Jack Ripper and blow his entire load.

It could just be a series of escalations and provocations until we are in a nuclear war no one wanted:
  • NATO declares a no-fly zone.
  • So Russia tells them to **** off and violates it.
  • So NATO shoots down some Russian planes.
  • So Russia bombs anti-aircraft sites inside Poland.
  • So NATO bombs missile location and army bases inside Russia.
  • So Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine.
  • So NATO uses tactical nukes to destroy Russian naval bases in Crimea and Syria.
  • So Russia uses tactical nukes in Poland, the Baltics, and Turkey.
  • So NATO uses tactical nukes inside Russia itself.
  • So Russia launches strategic nukes against every major NATO capital.
  • So NATO launches strategic nukes against every major Russian city and military base.
And the thing about this escalation is that every step in the chain (except the last two) could be accompanied with an assurance from the escalating side that *this* is all they are doing, and no more. *This* is the new red line. After all, they wouldn't want to escalate any further.
 
BirdinHand said:
Volunteers are welcome in Ukraine.

Go get him tiger!
Click to expand...

Would think we could do better than this on a debate forum. The old "why don't YOU..."

Why don't YOU pay more taxes and leave the rest of us alone?
Why don't YOU start your own company that hires more minorities?
Why don't YOU build more roads, etc etc etc.

Just a weak debate trick. We're talking policy here.
 
Anyone who is in favor of the no-fly zone... please supply me with a legal basis for instituting one, given that a UN Security Council Resolution or a Congressional Authorization probably isn't in the cards.
 
Uncle_Phil said:
I agree. He would go north and come down through Canada.
Click to expand...
Uncle_Phil:

This amuses me. The mud (rasputista) in Ukraine is almost completely bogging down the Russian advance over just hundreds of kilometres from its well developed borders with Ukraine. They would have no chance getting troops and ample supplies across thousands of kilometres of pack ice, tundra, taĂŻga, Arctic bogs boreal forest and muskeg. But thank you for the giggle in these depressing times.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.
 
I voted no for the reasons many here have voiced regarding a fear of a shooting war between nuclear powers. At the same time, I struggle with what this means in terms of justifying nuclear proliferation for developing nations since the clear signal is being a nuclear power prevents direct military action from the world's most armed nation. I think it's a risk worth taking because Russia's actions have not gone unpunished; between arming Ukrainians and extensive sanctions, this should be an effective signal to others that this behavior is a bad idea. I'd rather try this first than resorting to an armed escalation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom