• NewDark@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?

    And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.

    • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire’s aggression by the rest of the world.
      Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?

      You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?

      Which isn’t exactly a law of nature and doesn’t actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.

      Not sure why you are even bringing this up.

      And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.

      The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.

      Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.

      You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.

      • NewDark@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        Ukraine is not the US, and not even a part of Nato. I’d love the empire to fall. A land grab against Russia’s neighbor isn’t some benevolent fight against imperialism