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
  • GaryLeChat@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons? That's basically advocating for nuclear war, pretty bad take overall.

      • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats never really been grounds for war in the past.

        Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.

      • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have gone far further than any of those.

        Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.

        That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.

        • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war

          While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen

          • combat_brandonism [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves.

            Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.

            • Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yep, the US was definitely at fault in the Cuban Missile Crisis for the missile placements in Europe and preparing to invade Cuba

          • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are we debating the moral merit

                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.

                He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

                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.