Topic: Oooh I'm so scared!
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #118,366
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-warns-of-fatal-consequences-after-us-weapon-destroyed-targets-in-russia(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later[^] [v] #1,300,782
Link's dead already. Someone shoot up a Lada with a Ruger or something?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,790
Nah, Ukraine used USA made weapons and destroyed some of Putin's military shit. Now Putin making threats against USA.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,798
What's the worst a nuclear-armed country fighting for it's very survival could do?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,802
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,818
Putin being a bitch again
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,872
@1,300,798 (C)
> What's the worst a nuclear-armed country fighting for it's very survival could do?
If he decided to use nuclear weapons it would trigger MAD which means no more Russia and no more putin
He is a pussy ass bitch and isn’t gonna do shit, just more rusty sabre rattling from a worthless despot and his merry band of pedophiles, nazis, and alcoholics that can’t string two fucking brain cells together he needs to not constantly fuck up and bomb his own country, fucking pathetic that he actually thinks anyone is afraid of him
> What's the worst a nuclear-armed country fighting for it's very survival could do?
If he decided to use nuclear weapons it would trigger MAD which means no more Russia and no more putin
He is a pussy ass bitch and isn’t gonna do shit, just more rusty sabre rattling from a worthless despot and his merry band of pedophiles, nazis, and alcoholics that can’t string two fucking brain cells together he needs to not constantly fuck up and bomb his own country, fucking pathetic that he actually thinks anyone is afraid of him
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,875
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,877
I think if Putin can fire missiles from Russia to destroy US weapons in Ukraine, then its only fair that Ukraine can fire US missiles to destroy Putin's weapons in Russia. As an honest, and honorable gentleman I'm sure he is fine with that.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,904
@1,300,872 (E)
So he could do a lot of damage, and we're just hoping he values his life enough not to.
An old man with a terminal diagnosis would have nothing to lose, and might just start that conflict out of vanity so civilization ends with him. There's a lot of people out there with this mindset, but no common person has the kind of power to do it.
The only real motivation not to would be to save Russia, but even if you assume he cares about that, will he still avoid nukes if he sees Russia being encircled and thinks they are doomed if they do nothing? Continuing to escalate would be rational if it's a small chance of winning vs a certain chance of Russia being eaten up by NATO.
So he could do a lot of damage, and we're just hoping he values his life enough not to.
An old man with a terminal diagnosis would have nothing to lose, and might just start that conflict out of vanity so civilization ends with him. There's a lot of people out there with this mindset, but no common person has the kind of power to do it.
The only real motivation not to would be to save Russia, but even if you assume he cares about that, will he still avoid nukes if he sees Russia being encircled and thinks they are doomed if they do nothing? Continuing to escalate would be rational if it's a small chance of winning vs a certain chance of Russia being eaten up by NATO.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,909
@previous (C)
> So he could do a lot of damage, and we're just hoping he values his life enough not to.
>
> An old man with a terminal diagnosis would have nothing to lose, and might just start that conflict out of vanity so civilization ends with him. There's a lot of people out there with this mindset, but no common person has the kind of power to do it.
>
> The only real motivation not to would be to save Russia, but even if you assume he cares about that, will he still avoid nukes if he sees Russia being encircled and thinks they are doomed if they do nothing? Continuing to escalate would be rational if it's a small chance of winning vs a certain chance of Russia being eaten up by NATO.
If you seriously think Russia would use nukes against anyone you are fucking delusional
> So he could do a lot of damage, and we're just hoping he values his life enough not to.
>
> An old man with a terminal diagnosis would have nothing to lose, and might just start that conflict out of vanity so civilization ends with him. There's a lot of people out there with this mindset, but no common person has the kind of power to do it.
>
> The only real motivation not to would be to save Russia, but even if you assume he cares about that, will he still avoid nukes if he sees Russia being encircled and thinks they are doomed if they do nothing? Continuing to escalate would be rational if it's a small chance of winning vs a certain chance of Russia being eaten up by NATO.
If you seriously think Russia would use nukes against anyone you are fucking delusional
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,912
@previous (E)
If you think they made nukes just to sit on the shelf and never get used you're taking the deterrent aspect much too literally.
A weapon isn't a deterrent if everyone thinks you'd never use it. The fact that so many people hold the opinion you just shared is exactly why Russia would use a nuke, to shake off that notion and restore it's ability to work as a deterrent.
If Russia annexes parts of Ukraine and then nukes an uprising, they can signal that they are willing to use nukes while still making the case they've used it less than the US. The US nuked 2 cities in a foreign country, while they just nuked one city in their own country.
The fact that the west would point out it wasn't recognized as their own country wouldn't really matter, because it's been disputed for years beforehand and wouldn't trigger anything close to the type of all-out war that a movie like Threads shows.
If the president and all his military advisors are woken up and asked about their response, are they going to decide that they want to trigger the end of the world because Putin crossed a red line? Or will they condemn it, sanction them, and try to keep their own civilization going?
Your view is appropriate for a kid learning about the cold war for the first time, but anyone thinking about this for a moment should realize the US wont throw away the world to avenge some Ukranians. And Russia won't just sit back and die because demonstrating strength would constitute a war crime in a foreign court.
If you think they made nukes just to sit on the shelf and never get used you're taking the deterrent aspect much too literally.
A weapon isn't a deterrent if everyone thinks you'd never use it. The fact that so many people hold the opinion you just shared is exactly why Russia would use a nuke, to shake off that notion and restore it's ability to work as a deterrent.
If Russia annexes parts of Ukraine and then nukes an uprising, they can signal that they are willing to use nukes while still making the case they've used it less than the US. The US nuked 2 cities in a foreign country, while they just nuked one city in their own country.
The fact that the west would point out it wasn't recognized as their own country wouldn't really matter, because it's been disputed for years beforehand and wouldn't trigger anything close to the type of all-out war that a movie like Threads shows.
If the president and all his military advisors are woken up and asked about their response, are they going to decide that they want to trigger the end of the world because Putin crossed a red line? Or will they condemn it, sanction them, and try to keep their own civilization going?
Your view is appropriate for a kid learning about the cold war for the first time, but anyone thinking about this for a moment should realize the US wont throw away the world to avenge some Ukranians. And Russia won't just sit back and die because demonstrating strength would constitute a war crime in a foreign court.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 45 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,920
@previous (C)
But what if it doesn't just end in Ukraine? Putin thinks it's fair to tell people that they ought to not fight back, or they'll be nuked. Does such a man really find peace with Ukraine alone?
But what if it doesn't just end in Ukraine? Putin thinks it's fair to tell people that they ought to not fight back, or they'll be nuked. Does such a man really find peace with Ukraine alone?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 47 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,928
@1,300,912 (C)
> If you think they made nukes just to sit on the shelf and never get used you're taking the deterrent aspect much too literally.
>
> A weapon isn't a deterrent if everyone thinks you'd never use it. The fact that so many people hold the opinion you just shared is exactly why Russia would use a nuke, to shake off that notion and restore it's ability to work as a deterrent.
>
> If Russia annexes parts of Ukraine and then nukes an uprising, they can signal that they are willing to use nukes while still making the case they've used it less than the US. The US nuked 2 cities in a foreign country, while they just nuked one city in their own country.
>
> The fact that the west would point out it wasn't recognized as their own country wouldn't really matter, because it's been disputed for years beforehand and wouldn't trigger anything close to the type of all-out war that a movie like Threads shows.
>
> If the president and all his military advisors are woken up and asked about their response, are they going to decide that they want to trigger the end of the world because Putin crossed a red line? Or will they condemn it, sanction them, and try to keep their own civilization going?
>
> Your view is appropriate for a kid learning about the cold war for the first time, but anyone thinking about this for a moment should realize the US wont throw away the world to avenge some Ukranians. And Russia won't just sit back and die because demonstrating strength would constitute a war crime in a foreign court.
TLDR
How the fuck you managed to use so many words to say absolutely nothing is astounding
> If you think they made nukes just to sit on the shelf and never get used you're taking the deterrent aspect much too literally.
>
> A weapon isn't a deterrent if everyone thinks you'd never use it. The fact that so many people hold the opinion you just shared is exactly why Russia would use a nuke, to shake off that notion and restore it's ability to work as a deterrent.
>
> If Russia annexes parts of Ukraine and then nukes an uprising, they can signal that they are willing to use nukes while still making the case they've used it less than the US. The US nuked 2 cities in a foreign country, while they just nuked one city in their own country.
>
> The fact that the west would point out it wasn't recognized as their own country wouldn't really matter, because it's been disputed for years beforehand and wouldn't trigger anything close to the type of all-out war that a movie like Threads shows.
>
> If the president and all his military advisors are woken up and asked about their response, are they going to decide that they want to trigger the end of the world because Putin crossed a red line? Or will they condemn it, sanction them, and try to keep their own civilization going?
>
> Your view is appropriate for a kid learning about the cold war for the first time, but anyone thinking about this for a moment should realize the US wont throw away the world to avenge some Ukranians. And Russia won't just sit back and die because demonstrating strength would constitute a war crime in a foreign court.
TLDR
How the fuck you managed to use so many words to say absolutely nothing is astounding
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,930
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,940
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,943
@1,300,928 (E)
So Russia will just sit on their best card?
They've deleted islands off the map to flex, and they weren't in the final stages of encirclement when that happened.
So Russia will just sit on their best card?
They've deleted islands off the map to flex, and they weren't in the final stages of encirclement when that happened.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,947
Putin has said himself, if there is no Russia then why does there need to be a world.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,948
@previous (J)
He's changed his tune it seems, and is now a cautious humanitarian without any strong feelings on the continuity of his nation.
He's changed his tune it seems, and is now a cautious humanitarian without any strong feelings on the continuity of his nation.
