If "direct armed conflict" erupts "between Russia and NATO," Russia's envoy tells Newsweek, "the United States will not be able to hide behind the ocean."
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.
I don’t understand if you are brain damaged. Destroying a nuclear power plant - releasing a cloud of radioactive debris - is in no way comparable to using depleted uranium shells.
Seriously, your argument is like saying “Well it’s OK for us to use chemical weapons because they used bleach for cleaning”. It’s beyond ridiculous.
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
Doesn’t seem unreasonable. Any nuclear attack or disaster in Ukraine would affect neighboring countries.
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.
Removed by mod
Nice whatabouism.
Removed by mod
You don’t have to be online all the time, you know. There are other things you can be doing with your life.
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.
Removed by mod
I don’t understand if you are brain damaged. Destroying a nuclear power plant - releasing a cloud of radioactive debris - is in no way comparable to using depleted uranium shells.
Seriously, your argument is like saying “Well it’s OK for us to use chemical weapons because they used bleach for cleaning”. It’s beyond ridiculous.
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
Removed by mod
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
having a rough day for some reason?
received some bad news, maybe?
Removed by mod
you really caught @terror_alarm on twitter in 4k
if he was a part of this conversation hed be entirely shook, im sure
Wow, thought this was fake, but no, it’s real (deleted now tho)
3: