I certainly have had enough of some people claiming that we must cower to Putin, because he has nuclear weapons. And I am glad to see, I am not alone.
In a debate show on Danish national tv, foreign editor of Danish newspaper Weekendavisen, Anna Libak replied to yet another “But Putin’s has nuclear weapons!” by saying, “If Hitler had nuclear weapons, would we have given him France?”
Bingo! Of course we would not. And neither should Putin have Ukraine.
@randahl That’s an unfortunate comparison when nuclear weapons were used twice then. A realistic response is we (NATO) have them too.
And NATO's are guaranteed to work.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver @randahl i believe their warheads work, but their fancy new delivery systems don’t. The old ones do though
@Kierkegaanks @Sir_Osis_of_Liver @randahl And you think we can't shoot those down?
@billOfEarth42
Iran just got at least five missiles through the combined Israeli and American defences, and they were told of the time the strike was coming something like a day in advance.
The russians have much better missiles, and one nuclear weapon is enough to devastate any city.
@Kierkegaanks @Sir_Osis_of_Liver @randahl
@tobychev Russia better pull out of Ukraine then. Because we have nuclear weapons.
@billOfEarth42 @Kierkegaanks @Sir_Osis_of_Liver
@randahl
Were you trying to reply to someone else? I'm talking about the reliability of missile defense in the context of nuclear weapons.
@billOfEarth42 @Kierkegaanks @Sir_Osis_of_Liver
@billOfEarth42
Not sure what paper you read, but in the NY Times I read on May 8 that about 30% of the Russian missiles got through, which is quite a bit better than the around 4-8% the Iranians managed.
@tobychev @randahl @Kierkegaanks @Sir_Osis_of_Liver
Yes, I was replying to kierkeganks. And I would like to point out that Russians look a lot better on paper than in the battlefield.