Air drop shotgun? Horrifying.
Hell yeah, steel rain. American tax dollars put to good use.Air drop shotgun? Horrifying.
If Putin was looking for a change in attitude from Kyiv he sort of got it
Really? No other differences whatsoever? Like the fact Japan attacked us first, vs Russia attacking Ukraine and getting the shit kicked out of them?It cannot be denied that the U.S. did in fact set the precedent.
The only argument is the difference in technology of what was available then vs now.
.
On the contrary, I'll argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a precedent but were a warning, proof that nuclear weapons are beyond the pale, that they make all out warfare untenable. The invention and development of the hydrogen bomb underscored that. H&N were IIRC 10 kiloton weapons. Your H bombs are multi-megaton.It cannot be denied that the U.S. did in fact set the precedent.
The only argument is the difference in technology of what was available then vs now.
.
And the shear fact that literally no one could do anything about it at the time. Doesn't necessarily make it right, but does make it very different.[DHT said:Osiris, post: 40856072, member: 366440"]
Really? No other differences whatsoever? Like the fact Japan attacked us first, vs Russia attacking Ukraine and getting the shit kicked out of them?
Nobody's defending it. It is NOT the same situation however.The act cannot be defended. Deflection is irrelevant. We did it. Reasons do not change the facts.
The main difference was they were the only nuclear power at the time. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine had not yet existed.It cannot be denied that the U.S. did in fact set the precedent.
The only argument is the difference in technology of what was available then vs now.
There are some big differances. One being the security guarantee Ukraine has that will kick off WWIII if Russia drops a nuke on it.It cannot be denied that the U.S. did in fact set the precedent.
The only argument is the difference in technology of what was available then vs now.
There is another big one:The main difference was they were the only nuclear power at the time. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine had not yet existed.
The act cannot be defended. Deflection is irrelevant. We did it. Reasons do not change the facts.
Putin is making operational decisions (no retreat from Lyman, must take Bkhmut, etc) with predictable results.
It cannot be denied that the U.S. did in fact set the precedent.
The only argument is the difference in technology of what was available then vs now.
Russia launched an unprovoked attack on their neighbor, Ukraine, a nation whose sovereignty they had assured by treaty. "Reasons do not change the facts," your term. They were pretty sure Ukraine would be a pushover and fall and the world would accept annexation, like they did like with Crimea. They found instead that Ukraine is quite patriotic and does not want to become part of Russia but insists on independence and is defending itself, with help from other nations (who are not officially at war with Russia, but are supplying weapons, knowhow and intelligence). If Russia ups the ante and employs nuclear weapons in this imperialism it will spell the end of Russia as we and they know it, and I think that Russia knows this, whatever Putin may think. Saber rattling is brinksmanship. I think the war will go on and the situation will evolve without nukes being employed.The act cannot be defended. Deflection is irrelevant. We did it. Reasons do not change the facts.
I strongly disagree with that argument.One of the arguments you're dismissing out of hand is the notion that the nuclear strikes actually saved more lives than they took.
The idea the civilian population would defend a cruel and tyrannical government with bamboo spears is a bit racist.bamboo spear carrying civilians
War train carrying on, across the Kerch Bridge.
That bridge's date with high explosives is long overdue.
More Russian equipment being transferred to the southern front along the Crimean bridge right now (30/September/2022 )