41–50 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
World wars start from something small. Not saying this is it, but there are all the reasons to be concerned about today’s events.
I don't think that any of the world wars started out of small things, can you clarify?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve read too many Tom Clancy novels or something. People can declare whatever they want but unless there really is an attack on NATO, no one is talking about Article 5 and in such a circumstance it would be the attack itself and not the citation to a treaty that would be the issue. Also, a “full scale thermonuclear exchange” isn’t what it used to be. Stockpiles are orders of magnitude smaller than in the past, and…
You...realize that all "thermonuclear" is is doping your bomb with tritium/a light fusion stage to generate more neutrons, for more complete fission of the fissile primary, right? All nuclear weapons are fission. Only newer ones are fusion boosted fission devices. I assure you, there is more than enough nuclear ordinance laying around to ensure WWIV is fought with sticks and stones. You do not want .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
World wars start from something small. Not saying this is it, but there are all the reasons to be concerned about today’s events.
I don't think that any of the world wars started out of small things, can you clarify?
Am I correct in saying that Estonia is categorizing this as a threat to their security therefore requesting the rest of Nato to consider this an attack on a member?
They consider their security to be threatened, and requested NATO to discuss it. Officially. Which is kind of a big deal. Article 5 can be invoked once, intentionally or by accident, e.g. a NATO plane is attacked over Ukraine. This whole thing is a mess. Despite history since the end of the cold war (which makes some of Russia's positions somewhat understandable, and the fact that NATO didn't do anything different in…
I'm totally ignorant on NATO procedures, so forgive me that I don't understand the Big Deal here. Obviously, NATO nations will discuss this. They didn't need Estonia to draw attention to what Russia is doing.
So this seems to me a bit like: The exact thing that obviously would happen next (NATO nations discussing) will still happen, but now it's dressed up in a formalism?
https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con... People are minimizing this, based on the word "consultation". Don't be fooled, this is grave news, even though it is not Article 5. Article 5 invocation under these circumstances have substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.
> substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange. This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis. A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1] To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read modern history. Especially 1936 to 1940. If you are in a hurry you can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
I think I am well versed in European history, thank you for your snarky comment. There's no reason to believe some local conflict will undermine "democracies" all over Europe, notwithstanding the media that is always preying on people's fears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They consider their security to be threatened, and requested NATO to discuss it. Officially. Which is kind of a big deal. Article 5 can be invoked once, intentionally or by accident, e.g. a NATO plane is attacked over Ukraine. This whole thing is a mess. Despite history since the end of the cold war (which makes some of Russia's positions somewhat understandable, and the fact that NATO didn't do anything different in…
What makes Russia position understandable? What gives them right to occupy Ukraine?