Quote (Melatonina @ Sep 29 2022 12:30pm)
It would be too long to write everything down here, you could just open it and discuss but instead you will just stay on your position because your fragile dont want to be proven wrong.
I also aint the one regurgitating on a constant basis the regular propaganda like you do. I mean I dont have a problem with people blindly blaming russia for everything, unless they are from a country who's doing worse, if we exclude the past months.
You're incapable of *proving* me wrong.
Quote (kusotarre1 @ Sep 29 2022 12:37pm)
Yes, that's the justification for maintaining a first-strike policy and it would almost make sense if the US had not, in addition to actually dropping nukes on cities, many times throughout history directly threatened other states with nuclear war. We also know that at multiple times the US has come very close to launching huge nuclear attacks against countries both with and without their own nuclear arsenals.
Russia, China, France, India and Pakistan and many others all have nuclear weapons. Only America maintains a policy of using them first. If the policy made sense, more countries would adopt that posture.
America maintains this policy because America believes it can win a nuclear war.
We also know when the USSR came very close to launching all out nuclear war.
Russia, China, India, and Pakistan don't extend an umbrella of nuclear protection to a litany of other countries like the US does, and France benefits from that nuclear umbrella so it can afford to have such a policy. The US on the other hand doesn't just protect itself with its nuclear arsenal, so being able to lend assurances to allies that we've got their backs means a purely self-defense policy posture isn't always sufficient for making those assurances. That's why the US maintains this policy, not because it believes it can "win" a nuclear war.