Then it’s simple. The US should help Ukraine. They’re being invaded and are asking for help. For the “pragmatists”, any nation what helps Ukraine with have an easier time doing business with them afterwards.
I do not believe that Russia has working nukes and I bet most nation’s intelligence don’t believe they do either, but no one wants bet on that.
Also, I believe we’re already in WWIII. At least at some point in the future, the start of it will be retroactively decided to have happened before now.
I do not believe that Russia has working nukes and I bet most nation’s intelligence don’t believe they do either, but no one wants bet on that.
That’s a huge stretch. Working ICBMs are 1960s tech’. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated they’re perfectly capable of employing 1960s tech’ reliably enough to function sometimes.
It doesn’t take a 2026 nuke to hit a country in 2026. The more modern, the more likely it hits, but they have so many.
Also, I believe we’re already in WWIII. At least at some point in the future, the start of it will be retroactively decided to have happened before now.
You’re being pedantic about the term WWIII. We both know what I meant.
Nukes don’t store forever. They require more upkeep then other types of military equipment and Russia has proven to be lacking by their initial invasion. Keen eyes noticed that the trucks they were using were sitting for years by the dryrot wear on the tires.
I’m no nuclear expert but I do dabble in statistics, and you’re making an argument for “the majority of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function,” not an argument for “all of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function.”
All it takes is one to kill millions. That’s the scenario The West is desperately trying to avoid at any cost.
I don’t know why you’re doing mental gymnastics to deny either above point, but it’s getting exhausting trying to keep up with you.
Then it’s simple. The US should help Ukraine. They’re being invaded and are asking for help. For the “pragmatists”, any nation what helps Ukraine with have an easier time doing business with them afterwards.
The US has.
Ukraine has explicitly NOT asked for direct military assistance. They have not asked for troops or US airstrikes.
They have asked for weapons, logistics, intelligence, and ammunition. All of which have been provided by the US and European NATO nations.
It’s basically Chamberlain++.
Chamberlain’s appeasement for fear of kicking off WWII was bad enough, but now nuclear missiles are on the table, so there’s much more fear.
There’s never a good time to kick off WWIII, so most nations are going to bend over backward to not do so.
I do not believe that Russia has working nukes and I bet most nation’s intelligence don’t believe they do either, but no one wants bet on that.
Also, I believe we’re already in WWIII. At least at some point in the future, the start of it will be retroactively decided to have happened before now.
That’s a huge stretch. Working ICBMs are 1960s tech’. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated they’re perfectly capable of employing 1960s tech’ reliably enough to function sometimes.
It doesn’t take a 2026 nuke to hit a country in 2026. The more modern, the more likely it hits, but they have so many.
You’re being pedantic about the term WWIII. We both know what I meant.
Nukes don’t store forever. They require more upkeep then other types of military equipment and Russia has proven to be lacking by their initial invasion. Keen eyes noticed that the trucks they were using were sitting for years by the dryrot wear on the tires.
I’m no nuclear expert but I do dabble in statistics, and you’re making an argument for “the majority of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function,” not an argument for “all of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function.”
All it takes is one to kill millions. That’s the scenario The West is desperately trying to avoid at any cost.
I don’t know why you’re doing mental gymnastics to deny either above point, but it’s getting exhausting trying to keep up with you.