Orangeburst
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 49,231
- Likes
- 113,419
it was a gun buy back program for WMDs. just like most buy back programs it failed its stated goal.
in your world, the Ukrainians sold the Russians Russian weapons and received massive economic benefits, as well as an agreement their borders wouldn't be violated (from either side) and thus would receive support from whoever the "other" was that didn't attack them. kinda freaking brilliant for the Ukrainians, and dumb for the Russians to buy something that was already theirs.
I don't think Russia, Ukraine, or the US has developed any new nukes. the US and Russia have updated the platforms that carry them, but they are all still the same. which just goes back to my point of them not being Russian-only nukes, which you are still avoiding.
Oh I didn’t say that but it could be interpreted that way I agree. If all of Europe is at war we can’t help ourselves we’d jump in as history shows.so you could envision an entire European continent engaged in war, and the US sits it out?
bike threats are the worst. Getting Schwinned.Oh I didn’t say that but it could be interpreted that way I agree. If all of Europe is at war we can’t help ourselves we’d jump in as history shows.
My point is Europe alone can easily handle this. Even a portion of Europe could handle this. The US alone could handle the orcs. All of them together would curb stomp the orcs. And Putin knows this and wants no part of it. I believe his bike threats are empty because if he lights one single low yield one off even Russia ceases to exist. I view all the nuke bluster as background noise and hollow threats.
I agree to the last. because there won't be anyone even pretending to be the responsible adult once we are gone.I would say its the equivalent of saying New Mexico has nuclear weapons as they were produced there or components were produced there. The Ukraine gave them up or gave them back, so what? The world basically told them they should give them back, you can call it give them up.... it doesn't really matter. In theory, they could have produced some over the last 30 years. (i doubt)
I seriously doubt anyone can for sure say who is developing what, so on that point I guess I will fold. ( Why the Biden administration’s new nuclear gravity bomb is tragic) At the end of the day that was 30+ years ago. If the point is, countries shouldn't give up their nuclear weapons... on that I generally agree... matter of fact, Iran and the rest of the middle east are way behind the curve.
If one is repurposing the enriched uranium and decommissioning one warhead and making a new one... is that producing a new warhead? (I would say so what, all the major players have enough to repurpose)
If or when the United States finally kicks the bucket, I would imagine even more issues than what happened to USSR.
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.I would say its the equivalent of saying New Mexico has nuclear weapons as they were produced there or components were produced there. The Ukraine gave them up or gave them back, so what? The world basically told them they should give them back, you can call it give them up.... it doesn't really matter. In theory, they could have produced some over the last 30 years. (i doubt)
I seriously doubt anyone can for sure say who is developing what, so on that point I guess I will fold. ( Why the Biden administration’s new nuclear gravity bomb is tragic) At the end of the day that was 30+ years ago. If the point is, countries shouldn't give up their nuclear weapons... on that I generally agree... matter of fact, Iran and the rest of the middle east are way behind the curve.
If one is repurposing the enriched uranium and decommissioning one warhead and making a new one... is that producing a new warhead? (I would say so what, all the major players have enough to repurpose)
If or when the United States finally kicks the bucket, I would imagine even more issues than what happened to USSR.
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, Russia controlled the launch sequence and maintained operational control of the nuclear warheads and its weapons system.
Upon Ukraine’s 1991 independence, over 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons were left on its territory. Ukraine never possessed operational control of the weapons, and all were removed to Russia under a 1994 agreement in exchange for security assurances.
It really isn't that hard to find out the truth, guys.
Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction
Loading…
www.nti.org
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
LOLWhen they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.russia isn't going to do crap to the US or NATO. this war proves it.
Ukraine, isn't part of NATO, has no way to join NATO, and previously got rejected by NATO, gets invaded.
Finland crosses Putin's red line of joining NATO, isn't invaded. Putin doesn't even say squat.
stop with the warmongering. there are plenty of ways out without losing American lives. the US or NATO getting directly involved turns this into a nuclear war. this war is clearly not going to be a nuclear war otherwise.
the worst part is your rhetoric is feeding Putin's own disinformation campaign, and you are too oblivious to realize it.
Nobody should believe a word of what Panda boi says. I’ve no doubt he indeed told Macron what is outlined in that tweet and I’ve no doubt he has zero intention of following thru on those commitments
If the us were committing troops to ukraine, I'd consider joining up for their aid (if the military takes 50 year olds with poor eyesight). Unfortunately, I think I'd be signing up for the fools crusade in iran as things look now.When are you signing up?
Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.
I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.
the defense of that country in your book involves war, thus you are warmongering.Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.
I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.