How about the second question Ikes? Is it impossible that there will be another missile exchange like that last one or would that also have zero percent change? There is no other possibility that would not invalidate your claim.
This is a side point here, but the capitulation in question is not launching missiles into Russia.
I’m being silly talking to you though. The problem is that you’re not smart enough to understand this.
I’m confused as to what you’re talking about here. I don’t doubt Ukraine and Russia will continue to exchange strikes on each others territory. It’s been happening for quite some time here. Perhaps you meant something else?
Yeah it’s totally me being a complete idiot and not your continual lack of emotional regulation when anyone disagrees with you
You’re confused and ignorant and can’t follow the thread. The usual.
I’m fine with lots of people disagreeing with me and have no problem with the vast majority of people here. You, on the other hand, have problems with lots of people here. I don’t have a problem with disagreeing with people. I just don’t like specifically you because you’re such an asshole.
You’re making the case that recent actions by the USA wrt Ukraine have made nuclear war more likely. I’m saying that’s not true. I’m going on further to say that making decisions based off of russias nuclear blackmail is bad because:
- The threat isn’t real
- Giving into the threat will invite more threats and further destabilize Eastern Europe
Ok, would that have made nuclear war more likely?
Giving into Russian threats would further destabilize all of Eastern Europe, which would make nuclear war more likely.
So the intermediate range missile launched into Russia made nuclear war less likely? What about another? Or was this the absolutely perfect reduction in risk of nuclear war?
Like I’ve posted several times, it changed nothing as Russia has not changed their actual position.
So would more missile launches into Russia also not change the chance of nuclear war?
Well I suppose if Ukraine attempted some sort of strike at Russias nuclear deterrent it would, but the use of himars or atcams or whatever firing at troops or resources being waged to invade Ukraine? No, it would not.
Honestly the thing most worrisome to me about some sort of nuclear war is how shitty the Russia military seems to be. The fact that they cannot command air superiority in this conflict is nuts, and this weakness invites some other bad actor thinking they could strike at them without serious blowback.
-
What about a 3rd strike with ATACMS (range about 1000km into Russia)? And what about a 4th? A 5th? All zero change? Man you really know things precisely Ikes.
-
What do you know about what was stuck and whether or not any part of it was part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent? It was supposedly a “military facility” and, as with the USA, lots of military facilities contain parts of the nuclear deterrent.
Wait, so you think North Korea is now going to invade Russia?
Atcams range is 300km per wiki. Maybe you know better than them than I doubt it. I don’t think there’s anything Ukraine could or more importantly would do that would spark a nuclear confrontation with that weapons system. There’s been at least three Atacms strikes that I’ve seen reported, and they aren’t fundamentally different than himars or literal occupation that Ukraine has done already.
The North Korea and “how do you know it’s not a nuclear deterrent” that was struck are both not serious comments.
Ukraine has struck air defenses with atacms per Russia reports in the BBC. Russians nuclear deterrent also can’t be struck by a 300km missile system either
You don’t think Russia has nuclear weapons within 300km of their borders?
Well, what “bad actor” were you talking about?