nuclear war would inevitably lead to a nuclear holocaust that would cause the near extinction of the human species.
If you use tactical nukes, then it's not much more significant than using thermobaric ordnance or cassettes or even chemical weapons or anything else kinda nasty and non-conventional.
It won't lead to a global thermonuclear war and thus a nuclear holocaust any more than use of sarin in Syria did.
However! If you don't give a flying fuck about a smaller holocaust then I don't give one about your bigger one even if it involves me, I just don't care.
If you don’t give a flying fuck about a smaller holocaust then I don’t give one about your bigger one even if it involves me, I just don’t care.
Sure, Russia threatens the entire human species, but if it doesn't suit your liberal virtue-signalling for some marginalized minority, then it's fine with you.
What's the survival of humanity vs your imaginary liberal internet points.
Sure, Russia threatens the entire human species,
Your life is worth at best as much as any Artsakhi farmer's life. In fact much less, if by "the entire human species" you mean yourself.
Now, Russia can't threaten anybody, I'd be surprised if any of those strategic nukes are still operational. I happen to live in Russia and know how things are usually done here. That aside, Russia's regime consists of thieves and murderers, not some Hollywood fascist hardliners. They care for their lives very much.
but if it doesn’t suit your liberal virtue-signalling for some marginalized minority
At this point I'd actually prefer that somebody nukes the miserable being you are.
And people of Artsakh are very much the majority in their land, however they are besieged and dying from hunger.
But, well, it's good to know that you care about Ukraine only because of being afraid that, again, somebody nukes you.
Also my ancestors on paternal side happen to be from a certain valley in the province of Tayq, Western Armenia, currently occupied by a certain genocidal NATO country. I won't buy your bullshit. I'll care about Ukraine and somebody, again, nuking you personally when enough people care about that, which is never.
The people of Artsakh are also people of the world. Russia is threatening them with extinction too. You don't actual care about them. You're a fake and a liar begging for liberal minority points online.
Russia is threatening them in much more material way, with all its deals with Azerbaijan (which would be something sanction-worthy for the latter if it were, I don't know, Georgia), but it isn't killing them right now.
You don’t actual care about them.
I very definitely do, my aunt's husband is from there and a participant of the first war.
You’re a fake and a liar
Judging by your use of the words "liberal" and "minority", I'd say your opinion on the matter is not worth much, neither are you as a whole.
If you actually cared about them, you should do something about Russia's short pathetic clown of a dictator. Then Russia would have a chance at respect on the world stage.
Right now, the entire rest world would be better off if Russia didn't exist. You let Putin make that so.
Your own country is not a dictatorship yet it deals with Azerbaijan and Turkey. So you are responsible for that, democracy and all. I suggest you fix that first, then blabber about what I do and don't do, which you don't know anyway. Right now you are a valid target for that "hit them where they don't expect it" option that the weaker side always has.
The US is not threatening the world with nukes, and it isn't destroying a neighboring country like Russia is destroying Ukraine.
Russia is such a steaming heap of shit that it even makes the United States look good. Let that sink in.
I mean, Iraq was not good.
But yeah, I agree with this way to present your point.
Iraq was not good, but the US didn't just bomb everything to hell, it also built a lot of new infrastructure and invested money and resources back into the local population.
Can you even imagine Russian rebuilding anything for Ukrainians? Can you imagine Russia spending money to make life for Ukrainians better?
Russia is full on the #1 most terrorist dictator state in the entire world.
Can you even imagine Russian rebuilding anything for Ukrainians? Can you imagine Russia spending money to make life for Ukrainians better?
I mean, it did flood Chechnya with money. Mostly for the loyal bandits, but they do build stuff.
Russia is full on the #1 most terrorist dictator state in the entire world.
Not on the level of Turkey or Saudi Arabia, no. Or maybe at exactly the same level.
What country is Turkey invading and destroying right now?
Who is Turkey threatening with nukes?
What country is Saudi Arabia destroying right now?
What country is Saudi Arabia threatening with nukes?
Lots of counties are doing lots of bad things. Russia is objectively the worst of all, by far.
What country is Turkey invading and destroying right now?
Syria, Artsakh, Cyprus.
Who is Turkey threatening with nukes?
It doesn't have nukes, but it's threatening its every neighbor, especially Greece and Armenia.
What country is Saudi Arabia destroying right now?
Yemen.
What country is Saudi Arabia threatening with nukes?
It doesn't have nukes, but it was threatening Iran all the time until their recent rapprochement.
Other than these, one is a fascist genocidal horde and another a medieval kingdom with beheadings and sharia law, both allied to NATO, though. Russia is just a very big mafia state in comparison.
Russia is objectively the worst of all, by far.
Why are you repeating something you can't support with facts?
Maybe you think Ukraine has more value than Syria or Yemen or Artsakh due to it being "European"? For me a human life is a human life, but if we differentiate them, then civilization-wise compared to people of these countries Ukrainians (and Russians) are almost savages.
It won’t lead to a global thermonuclear war and thus a nuclear holocaust any more than use of sarin in Syria did.
You didn't mention the escalation policy of either of those countries during a war event.
Escalation policies tend to become very elastic when implemented by humans.
They really can get to some limited strategic exchange, but after that point some countries are democratic and that demos which supposedly rules them will tear into pieces everybody preventing the cessation of hostilities, and others are authoritarian, and their authority cares about its lives and well-being the most.
I mean, NATO officials have become much more modest with words about "any attack on NATO territory is an attack on NATO" after a few stray missiles have landed on Polish territory, for example.
Escalation policies tend to become very elastic when implemented by humans.
I'm talking about the Rules of Engagement during wartime. Especially when it comes to the release of nuclear weapons. These rules are very un-elastic.
Each use of nuclear force is responded to by an escalated nuclear force reply. This can keep happening until all the missiles are in the air, flying to their destinations.
Tactical nukes usually.
If you use tactical nukes, then it's not much more significant than using thermobaric ordnance or cassettes or even chemical weapons or anything else kinda nasty and non-conventional.
It won't lead to a global thermonuclear war and thus a nuclear holocaust any more than use of sarin in Syria did.
However! If you don't give a flying fuck about a smaller holocaust then I don't give one about your bigger one even if it involves me, I just don't care.
Sure, Russia threatens the entire human species, but if it doesn't suit your liberal virtue-signalling for some marginalized minority, then it's fine with you.
What's the survival of humanity vs your imaginary liberal internet points.
Your life is worth at best as much as any Artsakhi farmer's life. In fact much less, if by "the entire human species" you mean yourself.
Now, Russia can't threaten anybody, I'd be surprised if any of those strategic nukes are still operational. I happen to live in Russia and know how things are usually done here. That aside, Russia's regime consists of thieves and murderers, not some Hollywood fascist hardliners. They care for their lives very much.
At this point I'd actually prefer that somebody nukes the miserable being you are.
And people of Artsakh are very much the majority in their land, however they are besieged and dying from hunger.
But, well, it's good to know that you care about Ukraine only because of being afraid that, again, somebody nukes you.
Also my ancestors on paternal side happen to be from a certain valley in the province of Tayq, Western Armenia, currently occupied by a certain genocidal NATO country. I won't buy your bullshit. I'll care about Ukraine and somebody, again, nuking you personally when enough people care about that, which is never.
The people of Artsakh are also people of the world. Russia is threatening them with extinction too. You don't actual care about them. You're a fake and a liar begging for liberal minority points online.
Russia is threatening them in much more material way, with all its deals with Azerbaijan (which would be something sanction-worthy for the latter if it were, I don't know, Georgia), but it isn't killing them right now.
I very definitely do, my aunt's husband is from there and a participant of the first war.
Judging by your use of the words "liberal" and "minority", I'd say your opinion on the matter is not worth much, neither are you as a whole.
If you actually cared about them, you should do something about Russia's short pathetic clown of a dictator. Then Russia would have a chance at respect on the world stage.
Right now, the entire rest world would be better off if Russia didn't exist. You let Putin make that so.
Your own country is not a dictatorship yet it deals with Azerbaijan and Turkey. So you are responsible for that, democracy and all. I suggest you fix that first, then blabber about what I do and don't do, which you don't know anyway. Right now you are a valid target for that "hit them where they don't expect it" option that the weaker side always has.
The US is not threatening the world with nukes, and it isn't destroying a neighboring country like Russia is destroying Ukraine.
Russia is such a steaming heap of shit that it even makes the United States look good. Let that sink in.
I mean, Iraq was not good.
But yeah, I agree with this way to present your point.
Iraq was not good, but the US didn't just bomb everything to hell, it also built a lot of new infrastructure and invested money and resources back into the local population.
Can you even imagine Russian rebuilding anything for Ukrainians? Can you imagine Russia spending money to make life for Ukrainians better?
Russia is full on the #1 most terrorist dictator state in the entire world.
I mean, it did flood Chechnya with money. Mostly for the loyal bandits, but they do build stuff.
Not on the level of Turkey or Saudi Arabia, no. Or maybe at exactly the same level.
What country is Turkey invading and destroying right now?
Who is Turkey threatening with nukes?
What country is Saudi Arabia destroying right now?
What country is Saudi Arabia threatening with nukes?
Lots of counties are doing lots of bad things. Russia is objectively the worst of all, by far.
Syria, Artsakh, Cyprus.
It doesn't have nukes, but it's threatening its every neighbor, especially Greece and Armenia.
Yemen.
It doesn't have nukes, but it was threatening Iran all the time until their recent rapprochement.
Other than these, one is a fascist genocidal horde and another a medieval kingdom with beheadings and sharia law, both allied to NATO, though. Russia is just a very big mafia state in comparison.
Why are you repeating something you can't support with facts?
Maybe you think Ukraine has more value than Syria or Yemen or Artsakh due to it being "European"? For me a human life is a human life, but if we differentiate them, then civilization-wise compared to people of these countries Ukrainians (and Russians) are almost savages.
You didn't mention the escalation policy of either of those countries during a war event.
Escalation policies tend to become very elastic when implemented by humans.
They really can get to some limited strategic exchange, but after that point some countries are democratic and that demos which supposedly rules them will tear into pieces everybody preventing the cessation of hostilities, and others are authoritarian, and their authority cares about its lives and well-being the most.
I mean, NATO officials have become much more modest with words about "any attack on NATO territory is an attack on NATO" after a few stray missiles have landed on Polish territory, for example.
I'm talking about the Rules of Engagement during wartime. Especially when it comes to the release of nuclear weapons. These rules are very un-elastic.
Each use of nuclear force is responded to by an escalated nuclear force reply. This can keep happening until all the missiles are in the air, flying to their destinations.