Except Russia isn’t doing it, if it did I would condemn it. In the real world, it’s the U.S. that threatens to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threat.
Russia made a statement that included using nuclear weapons to defend any land it sees itself as owning while at the same time declaring land that it doesn’t even occupy to be part of Russia. I don’t see how that’s not a massive escalation.
We went over this before Russia never made such a statement. The only time Russia will use nuclear weapons would be in case of an existential threat to Russia. This is the official Russian nuclear stance and it has never changed. You keep trying to twist it into something that it’s not, and I wonder why you keep insisting on doing that. Could you explain yourself here?
In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.
Russia official counts parts of Ukraine that it does not occupy as its territory, so accordingly all bets are off on what weapons it can use.
Speaking of that nuclear stance, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (creators of the Doomsday Clock) was rather unimpressed. There’s plenty of fine print that leaves room to use nuclear weapons under conditions that you are not envisioning. A Ukraine in NATO? Under certain views, that’s an existential threat to Russia, even if NATO has no interest in ever crossing Russian borders.
Once again, Russia’s nuclear stance is not that it will use nuclear weapons if its territory is attacked. The stance is that Russia will use nuclear weapons in case of an existential threat. Do you not understand the difference between those statements, or are you intentionally ignoring it?
I’m reading over the policy and seeing that there’s enough room in there to launch a rocket if someone was stupid enough to want to. You just have to think that the state is under threat due to the loss of the invasion into Ukraine.
Okay, I’ll try that again but slower: do you support using a tactical nuclear weapons on a battlefield?
I do not support the use of nuclear weapons, and the only country that has an ambiguous stance on using nuclear weapons is US.
Including when Russia doing it? Or is there some 4D chess kicking in in that moment?
Except Russia isn’t doing it, if it did I would condemn it. In the real world, it’s the U.S. that threatens to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threat.
Russia made a statement that included using nuclear weapons to defend any land it sees itself as owning while at the same time declaring land that it doesn’t even occupy to be part of Russia. I don’t see how that’s not a massive escalation.
We went over this before Russia never made such a statement. The only time Russia will use nuclear weapons would be in case of an existential threat to Russia. This is the official Russian nuclear stance and it has never changed. You keep trying to twist it into something that it’s not, and I wonder why you keep insisting on doing that. Could you explain yourself here?
This was the statement:
Russia official counts parts of Ukraine that it does not occupy as its territory, so accordingly all bets are off on what weapons it can use.
Speaking of that nuclear stance, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (creators of the Doomsday Clock) was rather unimpressed. There’s plenty of fine print that leaves room to use nuclear weapons under conditions that you are not envisioning. A Ukraine in NATO? Under certain views, that’s an existential threat to Russia, even if NATO has no interest in ever crossing Russian borders.
Once again, Russia’s nuclear stance is not that it will use nuclear weapons if its territory is attacked. The stance is that Russia will use nuclear weapons in case of an existential threat. Do you not understand the difference between those statements, or are you intentionally ignoring it?
I’m reading over the policy and seeing that there’s enough room in there to launch a rocket if someone was stupid enough to want to. You just have to think that the state is under threat due to the loss of the invasion into Ukraine.