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/
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I mean I’m the nicest way you are schizo posting and telling everyone they are wrong or whatever like this post.
It’s fine to disagree but if you say you are lazy or don’t care then don’t spend the next few hours making posts telling everyone who disagrees with you they are lazy and wrong or dumb for not understanding your brilliant nuanced unsubstantiated understanding of the world.
If we had better mod tools I would of stopped you from posting for a day so you could regroup and look over it again with fresh eyes and vigor. I’m not trying to censor or be aggressive to you. You are just coming off as pretty antagonistic and that’s fine in smaller amounts.
It’s just a lot of energy over something I’m not even clear on since the goal post keeps moving but I might just be too daft to keep up with your nuanced unsourced view of the world. You could of provided them in your first or second or third or fourth post.
15 or 16 posts about why you are too lazy to source your claim or whatever (I don’t even know anymore dude) is kind of over the top. It kind of stopped looking like you where saying anything in good faith the first few posts. I’m sure you would think the same if someone came into the community you moderate and did the same… It’s just not a constructive way to get whatever point you are trying to make across.
Hope you have a good rest and blow all of our minds with your brilliant sourced post to your original statement 14 posts ago. No need to reply to this one you can go right back to the one below and show us all whatever unique and enlightened point you where trying to make there.
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/
I was talking about this statement you made.
The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?
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.
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…
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.
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. 🫡
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I mean I’m the nicest way you are schizo posting and telling everyone they are wrong or whatever like this post.
It’s fine to disagree but if you say you are lazy or don’t care then don’t spend the next few hours making posts telling everyone who disagrees with you they are lazy and wrong or dumb for not understanding your brilliant nuanced unsubstantiated understanding of the world. If we had better mod tools I would of stopped you from posting for a day so you could regroup and look over it again with fresh eyes and vigor. I’m not trying to censor or be aggressive to you. You are just coming off as pretty antagonistic and that’s fine in smaller amounts.
It’s just a lot of energy over something I’m not even clear on since the goal post keeps moving but I might just be too daft to keep up with your nuanced unsourced view of the world. You could of provided them in your first or second or third or fourth post.
15 or 16 posts about why you are too lazy to source your claim or whatever (I don’t even know anymore dude) is kind of over the top. It kind of stopped looking like you where saying anything in good faith the first few posts. I’m sure you would think the same if someone came into the community you moderate and did the same… It’s just not a constructive way to get whatever point you are trying to make across.
Hope you have a good rest and blow all of our minds with your brilliant sourced post to your original statement 14 posts ago. No need to reply to this one you can go right back to the one below and show us all whatever unique and enlightened point you where trying to make there.
https://slrpnk.net/comment/1591725
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to communicate some kind of coherent message in good faith.
Anyways thanks for reading my manifesto or not have a good day or night.
Tldr: source your claims or stop posting it’s unconstructive.