Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't often see posts from this person, but I too wonder why he/she continues to post the same inane comments over and over. Wonder why he/she doesn't ask for some new material.
The question does make sense.
Since the rogue court in The Hague ruled that a region can split from a country even against that country's will without violating international law, there are two opposing legal positions: peoples' right to self-determination vs territorial integrity of countries.
When that court ruled that way in order to deliver what Nato wanted to hear after they had bombed Kosovo out of Serbia and declared it independent because Kosovo people wanted it, it probably didn't think of the consequences that would have. Now any region can declare itself independent. Basically it is also the foundation of Crimea's and the Donbass' decision to split from Ukraine.
Another question in this respect is, whether international law trumps national law or vice versa. Sure, virtually every national constitution rules out separatism, but if that mattered, why would the court rule to the contrary?
So, by your logic, would you agree that it doesn't matter what the Taiwanese people want?
Or, why does it all of a sudden matter what Tibetans or Uyghurs supposedly want according to the West?
You keep asking the same inane question. Or sometimes you make the same inane comment.
Then you ignore the answer and make the same inane comment.
The Ukrainian constitution, like the US constitution and most other constitutions, dies not allow for a portion of their country to leave and defines the border as including Crimea. So it doesn't matter what the "people of Crimea" think.
So how about coups/revolutions, were/are any allowed?
Tactical nukes would not be needed to destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear-armed submarines would be more difficult, of course, but the location of land-based nuclear weapons have been known for years. And for years, NATO forces have mapped out war games to take them out. There are fighter pilots sitting alert 24/7 in Europe for just such a scenario.
If Putin launched a nuclear weapon, he would be crossing a red line, and Russia would be destroyed.
Tactical nukes would not be needed to destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear-armed submarines would be more difficult, of course, but the location of land-based nuclear weapons have been known for years. And for years, NATO forces have mapped out war games to take them out. There are fighter pilots sitting alert 24/7 in Europe for just such a scenario.
If Putin launched a nuclear weapon, he would be crossing a red line, and Russia would be destroyed.
So would the West because Russia has mobile means of destroying the West, even without human input.
The whole discussion is mute because Russia is doing fine, they don't need to use nuclear weapons.
So would the West because Russia has mobile means of destroying the West, even without human input.
The whole discussion is mute because Russia is doing fine, they don't need to use nuclear weapons.
If you call 100k casualties and 1000s of vehicles destroyed as doing fine, then yes, they are doing fine.
Tactical nukes would not be needed to destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear-armed submarines would be more difficult, of course, but the location of land-based nuclear weapons have been known for years. And for years, NATO forces have mapped out war games to take them out. There are fighter pilots sitting alert 24/7 in Europe for just such a scenario.
If Putin launched a nuclear weapon, he would be crossing a red line, and Russia would be destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
Nobody wins in a nuclear war, and you know that.
Everyone knows that.
Did you read my post? I copied it above in case you needed a refresher.
Nuclear weapons would not be needed to destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal. It could be done with conventional weapons. It has been gamed out for years.
Putin clearly did not fully grasp the consequences of his most recent attempt to "annex" Ukraine, but I suspect the picture is becoming clearer by the day.
So would the West because Russia has mobile means of destroying the West, even without human input.
The whole discussion is mute because Russia is doing fine, they don't need to use nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk55732
If you call 100k casualties and 1000s of vehicles destroyed as doing fine, then yes, they are doing fine.
From a U.S.centric standpoint we should be dealing with the Ukraine/Russia situation the same way Obama did in 2014.
One of his best decisions as POTUS. Props to him on such a wise choice.
Let them sort it out.
Money better spent elsewhere...for our own Citizens.
Can help but wonder if they are running out of ammunition or enthusiasm for being slaughtered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
