• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, I’m much too lazy to generate a list, but considering feverish claims by sycophantic journalists as threats from the regime is pretty questionable. And of course the US has maintained its preemptive nuclear strike policy, which also appears on this list for Russia several times. So those things alone would be a moderately long list I expect.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Made what up, exactly? I’m not going to go through all of the statements made by hawkish journalists about how the US should use its arsenal because that’s a ridiculous thing to even care about, let alone summarize—that was my point, that this list includes many tangential and absurd claims not made by the actual government of Russia.

        As far as the second claim, it’s easy to verify and I thought it was common knowledge that the US maintains the right to strike first with nukes, just as Russia did but since apparently many people in this thread are unfamiliar with US policy, here you go: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/

        • Shit@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was talking about this statement you made.

          A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.

          The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you haven’t read the list we’re discussing. No wonder this is not a productive discussion.

            Several of the articles listed here are simply Russia reiterating that they will not restrict use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes… just as the US has. This is exactly what I mean when I say that many of these items are not threats in the conventional sense of the word.

            To be clear: I condemn the nuclear weapons policies and programs of both nations. But they are not direct threats to other nations in and of themselves.

            • Shit@sh.itjust.worksM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude I don’t know this is annoying and pretty dumb. The first one on the list I haven’t read has nothing to even do with the USA? Can you share a statement the USA has made in an official capacity like the first one on the list I allegedly haven’t read?

              This is just a bunch of whataboutism and changing the subject. I get you allegedly might not like nuclear weapons but most counties that have them don’t constantly threaten to use them for every perceived aggression.

              Russian retoric has gotten pretty escalatory and I can’t say I’ve seen the same for the USA recently. They have some north Korean energy… So please prove me wrong or just stop. Show me where the USA is threatening the apocalypse with Russia to secure concessions from non nuclear armed states? I’ll even take an official NATO statement saying we are in a hot war with Russia and will need to escalate to using nukes first if that’s easier? To be clear we are taking post ussr.

              Most counties don’t try to hold the world hostage with nuclear blackmail. Please just drop it…

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m sorry if I’m annoying you but factually incorrect posts annoy me. Especially in a time of war when hostilities and emotions are high, it is best to be skeptical and analyze the facts in a level-headed manner.

                The rest of your comment does not seem relevant. Can I provide a source of the US threatening Russia with nukes? No, because I never said they did that. I can provide some links that sycophants would exaggerate into threats (and have already done so elsewhere in this thread), but I don’t think you would find those convincing. Therefore you should not find them convincing when the places are reversed.

                Russian rhetoric has certainly gotten aggressive. This is why it’s so silly to include normal, non-threatening behavior on this list. It’s really not needed for the overall point that Russias nuclear policy is threatening and reckless. That remains true, but this list also remains an exaggeration of that truth.

                • Shit@sh.itjust.worksM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah I don’t know dude look over your posts your schizo posting… You only provided one source and it was regarding the president having the power to first strike…

                  Anyways I’m not going to be the one to ban you but this is dumb you didn’t get any point across.

                  Please try to be nice and engage in good faith in the future of you want a discussion not whatever this is.

                  Hope you have a better day tomorrow. 🫡

                  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t know what I said that was not nice or in good faith so it seems very aggressive to bring up banning but alright, have a good day to you as well.