The Horror of Nuclear War is Imminent. Think, People, Think!

[Warcok]

You haven't been banned for being a Russian troll yet? Hopefully it will happen soon.

You haven't been banned for being a Soros troll yet?

 

[Questerr]

You haven't been banned for being a Soros troll yet?

Gotta love the casual antisemitism.

 

[Cordelier]

You ask when does the U.S. get militarily involved against Russia. The answer is when they want to see the planet get reduced to a cinder.

But more to your perspective, there is no reasonable beef between the U.S. or the U.N. with Russia right now, as that's all in the heads of ideologues.

Russia is not the bad guy here. Zelenskyy is the one who made the huge "mistake", as he calls his purposeful threat, to become a NATO nation which would then allow him to sanction NATO nuclear missiles in Ukraine, which could then be positioned a mere 375 miles from Moscow, the obvious reality fact of which did not escape Putin in the least.

Your perspective that Russia is bad and at fault here and Zelenskyy is the innocent victim is simply erroneous.

Thus it's irrelevant and pointless to discuss military this of the U.S. vs. military that of Russia.

Zelenskyy screwed up big-time, and now his country's people are paying for his unethical screw-up big-time.

Zelenskyy is honor-bound to surrender, to bring the carnage to an end, and to prevent nuclear WWIII.

You are completely out to lunch.

If Ukraine wanted to join NATO or the EU, then why doesn't it have the sovereign right to do so?

Is Canada going to bow and scrape to whatever territorial claims Russia makes in the Arctic?

 

[Antiwar]

Yes. So how many does the organization NATO have?

Much more than zero. Enough to start World War Three. Otherwise, that 's top secret. NATO is all about USG nuclear weapons.

 

[Questerr]

Much more than zero. Enough to start World War Three. Otherwise, that 's top secret. NATO is all about USG nuclear weapons.

Uhhhh… France and the UK also have nuclear weapons.

And NATO *as an organization* has zero nuclear weapons. Three member states have nuclear weapons but the organization of NATO has zero control or authority over them.

 

[Antiwar]

Uhhhh… France and the UK also have nuclear weapons.

And NATO *as an organization* has zero nuclear weapons. Three member states have nuclear weapons but the organization of NATO has zero control or authority over them.

Yeah, wrong. NATO's own website says they have nuclear weapons. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the nuclear HEAVYWEIGHT that backs up that threat of violence. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the NATO HEAVYWEIGHT. Only people that want to lose DP Internet points post that says otherwise. That'd be you.

 

[Questerr]

Yeah, wrong. NATO's own website says they have nuclear weapons. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the nuclear HEAVYWEIGHT that backs up that threat of violence. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the NATO HEAVYWEIGHT. Only people that want to lose DP Internet points post that says otherwise. That'd be you.

So where are these weapons that the organization of NATO owns located? Who in the NATO organization has launch authority? The Secretary General?

 

[jnug]

Yeah, wrong. NATO's own website says they have nuclear weapons. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the nuclear HEAVYWEIGHT that backs up that threat of violence. 'Everybody knows' that the USG is the NATO HEAVYWEIGHT. Only people that want to lose DP Internet points post that says otherwise. That'd be you.

Yeah wrong. Just because NATO has nuclear policy does not mean it has nuclear weapons. From the web site you are trying to quote from:
"Three NATO members - the United States, France and the United Kingdom – have nuclear weapons."

The End.

 

[holbritter]

War with Russia will be instantly nuclear, with very few surviving, if any.

Zelenskyy must surrender, immediately, as he is not only in the ethical wrong for threatening to place NATO nuclear missiles within 400 miles of Moscow, thereby causing this war, he is also morally wrong for calling for the U.S. to create a no-fly zone, as we all know that would receive an immediate nuclear response from Putin, as he has promised.

We must remember, that we ought not participate in a battle between countries requiring us to pick the side on which we wish to be vaporized.

The only fight here is between nuclear missiles and humanity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is on the side of the missiles.

Nope

 

[Antiwar]

Just because NATO has nuclear policy does not mean it has nuclear weapons.

That's some fine logic.

 

[jnug]

That's some fine logic.

Hey, it is what it is. You were the one that went to the NATO site looking for support for your position. You should have read the thing first and you need to understand the difference between having a nuclear policy and having nukes. The NATO treaty members are all sovereign nations. Three of them have nukes. NATO has a consultative role to play particularly given the possible attack of a NATO treaty member that does not actually have nukes. However absolutely NOTHING prevents the three nuclear powers within NATO that are sovereign powers from exerting their sovereign powers and each using its nukes as it sees fit.

Nobody but nobody of the three nuclear powers that have nukes is going to wait for some "consultation" with NATO to use their nukes if they are under an actual first nuclear strike in progress.

 

[Antiwar]

Hey, it is what it is. You were the one that went to the NATO site looking for support for your position. You should have read the thing first and you need to understand the difference between having a nuclear policy and having nukes. The NATO treaty members are all sovereign nations. Three of them have nukes. NATO has a consultative role to play particularly given the possible attack of a NATO treaty member that does not actually have nukes. However absolutely NOTHING prevents the three nuclear powers within NATO that are sovereign powers from exerting their sovereign powers and each using its nukes as it sees fit.

Nobody but nobody of the three nuclear powers that have nukes is going to wait for some "consultation" with NATO to use their nukes if they are under an actual first nuclear strike in progress.

Put the shovel down.

 

[jnug]

Put the shovel down.

Meaning what?

 

[Antiwar]

Meaning what?

NATO is all about nuclear weapons. Stop trying to twist .

 

[jnug]

NATO is all about nuclear weapons. Stop trying to twist .

NATO Is a defensive treaty alliance. It is ALL ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF THE ALLIANCE MEMBER NATIONS. It does not even have nukes. So its hard to make a legitimate case that NATO is all about nukes when NATO does not have any nukes.

 

[Antiwar]

NATO Is a defensive treaty alliance. It is ALL ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF THE ALLIANCE MEMBER NATIONS. It does not even have nukes. So its hard to make a legitimate case that NATO is all about nukes when NATO does not have any nukes.

Jesus F Kennedy, some people.

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

 

[jnug]

Jesus F Kennedy, some people.

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

"Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities ..."

They are because three of the member nations are actually sovereign states that are also nuclear powers. That does not mean that NATO Is all about nukes. Kennedy was simply stating the obvious which you have extrapolated to mean something it does not mean.

Again, NATO is a defensive treaty alliance that is all about the defense of the member nations. I simply do not see how you can even post up the Kennedy quote and think it somehow supports your argument.

Did NATO after 9/11 and after the US invoked article 5 of the NATO charter begin lobbing nukes into Afghanistan? Did the US start lobbing nukes into Afghanistan?

So go ahead, tell us again about how "NATO is all about the nukes".

 

[maxparrish]

War with Russia will be instantly nuclear, with very few surviving, if any.

Zelenskyy must surrender, immediately, as he is not only in the ethical wrong for threatening to place NATO nuclear missiles within 400 miles of Moscow, thereby causing this war, he is also morally wrong for calling for the U.S. to create a no-fly zone, as we all know that would receive an immediate nuclear response from Putin, as he has promised.

We must remember, that we ought not participate in a battle between countries requiring us to pick the side on which we wish to be vaporized.

The only fight here is between nuclear missiles and humanity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is on the side of the missiles.

 

[Quag]

Claims in the Op are for entertainment purposes only and are not to be taken seriously

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The conflict today is not in reality about some "bad Russia". It's about a foolish, political lightweight Zelenskyy, who rather than admit to screwing up big-time about his threat to Russia via his clamoring for NATO membership for Ukraine, he wants to drag the whole world into nuclear annihilation. So your "Russia" this and "Russia" that is irrelevant.

As to avoiding nuclear annihilation of the planet, there is only one fight here, between nuclear missiles and humanity. If you continue your erroneous "bad Russia" diatribe, you're clearly on the side of the missiles.

The "bad Russia diatribe" exists in your imagination.


I have lived with the possibility of nuclear annihilation my entire life.

If you let the possibility of nuclear annihilation ruin the life and times you actually have now, in this moment
what are you protecting? Your ability to live in cringing fear of foreign assholes?

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SERIOUS THREATS!

Once you give in to threats, the threats increase.

 

[The Work Outing]

War with Russia will be instantly nuclear, with very few surviving, if any.

Zelenskyy must surrender, immediately, as he is not only in the ethical wrong for threatening to place NATO nuclear missiles within 400 miles of Moscow, thereby causing this war, he is also morally wrong for calling for the U.S. to create a no-fly zone, as we all know that would receive an immediate nuclear response from Putin, as he has promised.

We must remember, that we ought not participate in a battle between countries requiring us to pick the side on which we wish to be vaporized.

The only fight here is between nuclear missiles and humanity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is on the side of the missiles.

I agree with you.

But my main reason is that Ukraine has NO chance to win the war - since NATO will not intervene.

Also, Russia's terms for peace are simply:
1) no NATO for Ukraine ever (which Zelenskyy says he is okay with).
2) Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia (which it already is - in essence).
3) let the Donbas region go - instead of shelling it; like Kiev has been since 2014 and killed over 5,000 innocent people in the process.

It's not like Ukraine would lose their country if they agree to these terms.
But they might if they fight to the 'last man'.

Just ignore the people who have no idea what they are talking about. You sit behind their computers/phones from the safety of their (mostly) old age homes and say that 'Ukraine should NEVER surrender'.
Big talk from people who have nothing to lose.

You are right.
Ukraine should surrender before they lose their entire country and get hundreds of thousands of people killed for NOTHING.