They should oopsie whoopsie give Ukraine one.
-
They should oopsie whoopsie give Ukraine one. Seems fair since Ukraine only gave theirs up in exchange for American protection.
-
System shared this topic on
-
They should oopsie whoopsie give Ukraine one. Seems fair since Ukraine only gave theirs up in exchange for American protection.
Just having one would be more dangerous then having none. It's not enough for actual deterrence but it is enough for Russia to "justify" using its arsenal against them.
-
They should oopsie whoopsie give Ukraine one. Seems fair since Ukraine only gave theirs up in exchange for American protection.
Say it fell out of the plane.
The Americans have lost a few over the years.
-
Just having one would be more dangerous then having none. It's not enough for actual deterrence but it is enough for Russia to "justify" using its arsenal against them.
Oops, here's a couple dozen, looks like we mistakenly labeled a shipment.
-
Just having one would be more dangerous then having none. It's not enough for actual deterrence but it is enough for Russia to "justify" using its arsenal against them.
Trying to imagine doing the Cuban Missile Crisis but we're replacing Castro, Kennedy, and Khrushchev with Zelenskyy, Macron, and Putin.
What could go wrong?
-
Trying to imagine doing the Cuban Missile Crisis but we're replacing Castro, Kennedy, and Khrushchev with Zelenskyy, Macron, and Putin.
What could go wrong?
That order doesn't make sense, does it? It should be Castro=Zelensky, Khrushchev=Macron, and Kennedy=Putin ... but even then, it would only really make sense in the context of a prior action by Putin stationing missiles in points at map randomly Belarus. Maybe I am overthinking it, but I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was a different situation, especially as it occurred during a cold war.
-
System shared this topic on
