• Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The proposed resolution “views the use of any tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.”

    Doesn’t seem unreasonable. Any nuclear attack or disaster in Ukraine would affect neighboring countries.

    • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait until the wind is blowing from the west, drop a nuke, viola! No fall out on NATO, no justification for an Article V response.

    • TomHardy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah shelling Nuclear power plants and using depleted uranium ammo is something only NATO clowns can do, when Russia is using something radioactive, we suddenly start to think about the neighbors!1!!1!

        • TomHardy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In what sense? That the very gentlemen who tipped their hats and said to Russia’s concerns on toxic ammo “bla bla”, now assemble because of the same concerns, are called reasonable?

        • TomHardy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really, just got reminded of this kind of memes bro

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you really caught @terror_alarm on twitter in 4k

            if he was a part of this conversation hed be entirely shook, im sure

            • TomHardy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey mr big brains, that was only for example sake, I had the talk between the Bri’ish gents and Russia in mind, I don’t even know what this twitter account is

      • zurma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.

        • TomHardy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand if you are sarcastic? Literally a few months ago the Britbongs announced they sent depleted uranium ammo to Ukraine, known for causing increased cancer rates and birth defects in the regions they are used. Japan said they will donate trucks which were used during Fukushima and still are radioactive to Ukraine. Now, NATO suddenly cares about contaminates? LMAO this only proves Westerners see Ukrainians as subhumans just as they see Russians, they put them through stuff they would never accept on their soil.

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            anything on ‘the use of any tactical nuclear weapon’ or ‘the destruction of a nuclear facility’, what with that being what the conversation is about and all

            • TomHardy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              …, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory…

              This you left out on purpose?

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                yes, what with it not being one of the conditions for an “immediate response”, and actually just being elaboration on the actual conditions

                thats why it says “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

                as opposed to “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, or dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

                so sure, on purpose, that purpose being treating the text as if it says what it actually says

                • TomHardy
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  what? My point still stands NATO likes to sh*t but not to eat sh*t