had the chance to take out Russian bombers parked on the ground in June, but Washington’s restrictions on ATACMS strikes on Russian territory denied Kyiv its fleeting opportunity.
hey, maybe you got america all wrong, huh. alternate question: how does it benefit american companies profits, if russia starts hurling nukes across the pacific and over the artic circle?
The existence of nukes didn’t stop the government from participating in proxy wars during the Cold War period, and they certainly didn’t stop them from directly invading other countries in the early 2000s.
If I had to hazard a guess, nuclear annihilation isn’t the greatest concern.
one hot nuke launch at the us or it’s territories, allies, or nato partners, and the entire world goes up. just one. doesn’t even have to be that punishing. just one single solitary launch. one tiny nuke baby. uno. une. sule.
hey, maybe you got america all wrong, huh. alternate question: how does it benefit american companies profits, if russia starts hurling nukes across the pacific and over the artic circle?
The existence of nukes didn’t stop the government from participating in proxy wars during the Cold War period, and they certainly didn’t stop them from directly invading other countries in the early 2000s.
If I had to hazard a guess, nuclear annihilation isn’t the greatest concern.
deleted by creator
If they had the balls to start hurling nukes when they were threatened (and they damn well are threatened) the world would be over long ago
Which is to say, suggesting that they are ever going to be able to punish something as big as the US is fear mongering that only benefits russia
one hot nuke launch at the us or it’s territories, allies, or nato partners, and the entire world goes up. just one. doesn’t even have to be that punishing. just one single solitary launch. one tiny nuke baby. uno. une. sule.