If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after
Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?
I'm betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don't want to die for his stupidity.
There are people over Putin too. No ruler can rule alone and without consent, his rich oligarch buddies don’t want to cruise their yachts during nuclear winter.
Really dampens the mood. Not even the model-prostitutes will want to fuck in such dreary weather. Not that their consent matters to the oligarch.
Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It's one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.
Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out
Sorry... do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?
I was thinking of South Africa and I was wrong.
No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, "do it or you're next."
Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.
There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.
You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn't have had these problems.
Okay, but that's not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: "Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival."
Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?
Many of them will lack the lasting power of North Korea.
Please provide evidence for this claim. An age of dictatorships chart will do.
You aren't just making that up, right? You do have the data, don't you?
The key word in my comment is "will." That's a prediction. You can ping me in 25 years to see if this works out. In the mean time, people are taking this prediction seriously (it isn't only my prediction) when discussing global politics.
They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.
The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.
If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after
Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?
I'm betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don't want to die for his stupidity.
There are people over Putin too. No ruler can rule alone and without consent, his rich oligarch buddies don’t want to cruise their yachts during nuclear winter.
Really dampens the mood. Not even the model-prostitutes will want to fuck in such dreary weather. Not that their consent matters to the oligarch.
Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It's one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.
Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out
Sorry... do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?
I was thinking of South Africa and I was wrong.
No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, "do it or you're next."
Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.
There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.
https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/
You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn't have had these problems.
Okay, but that's not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: "Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival."
Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?
Many of them will lack the lasting power of North Korea.
Please provide evidence for this claim. An age of dictatorships chart will do.
You aren't just making that up, right? You do have the data, don't you?
The key word in my comment is "will." That's a prediction. You can ping me in 25 years to see if this works out. In the mean time, people are taking this prediction seriously (it isn't only my prediction) when discussing global politics.
They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.
The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.
X
Press (formally Twitter) to doubt.