This implies nuclear war is an option on the table, definitely a bad call. Additionally, wouldn't this mean the US has ample security? Based on their routine war crimes I'd think the opposite. Their weaponry does however ensure worldwide chaos, especially if a country wants to drop the dollar or has natural resources to exploit.

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This implies nuclear war is an option on the table

It is under certain conditions

Additionally, wouldn't this mean the US has ample security?

Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.

Based on their routine war crimes I'd think the opposite.

How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.

So thats it, got nukes and you'll get space, otherwise bend over as the US is coming for all your shit? Maybe its the insane spending on weaponry which allows the US to run a muck overseas destroying any shred of security in other country's.

How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.

Your statement permits terrorism, weapons equaling security is just downstream lockheed martin & friends propaganda. Where as security by definition means being free from danger or threat. Russian and US both possessing nukes derails any global security and more so in those two country's, no?

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I did't claim nuclear weapons being a solution for world peace. It is just that in the current state of the world, Russia would be the least to need "security guarantees" because no one would attack them anyway. You, however, make it appear I suggest to arm up anyone. But whatever, just keep twisting my words to fit your narrative ✌️

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

The article is about peace, granted world peace is a long way off but you eat an elephant one bite at a time, starting by ending current wars. Stating nukes equal security is what I don't agree with at all and I was just trying to expand on your stance. All in all, it is not a logical approach at all to say if a country has nukes they can't ask for some assurance they won't be neede 🤷‍♂️

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia would be the least to need "security guarantees" because no one would attack them anyway.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge_explosion

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh no, Ukraine attacked infrastructure outside of Russia that is being used to attack Ukraine. I mean, I guess that Putin's pride is wounded a little.

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Crimean bridge between Russia and Russian Crimea is outside of Russia?

The previous poster said no one would attack Russia. Which is untrue.

When y'all sign up, do they make you use your own account? Are you paid by the day or by the comment? It's by the comment, right? You've got a whole Dickens thing going on.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What is this Russian Crimea that you speak of?

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do they not have big maps on the wall in your troll farm?

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Big beautiful maps with Crimea in Ukraine. Only Russian maps show Crimea as Russian.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Hey quick question for you, who do you think lives in Crimea exactly?

[–] simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago

with Crimea in Ukraine.

It's not inside the Ukraine, silly

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

They've done it before.