lemm.ee

-34 points

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.

report

eestileib@mastodon.social

[ - ]

10 points

1 year ago

@LibertyLizard @AgileLion

Wow, it’s news to me that the US has a nuclear first-strike policy.

Maybe because it’s not the case.

The US is an imperialist bully, but you weaken your case by making false statements.

report

[ - ]

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/

-10 points

1 year ago

What false statements?

report

[ - ]

Shit@sh.itjust.worksM

33 points

1 year ago

So you made it up and now can’t provide a single source to your made up claims?

report

[ - ]

-20 points

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/

report

[ - ]

Shit@sh.itjust.worksM

21 points

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?

report

[ - ]

-12 points

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.

report

[ - ]

Shit@sh.itjust.worksM

9 points

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…

report

[ - ]

-7 points

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.

report