Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow
What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.
Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.
WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?
We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.
Removed by mod
No, you're bringing morality into this when it doesn't belong. You're confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there's a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn't matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it's worth it.
Removed by mod