What’s America’s view on this Tucker Carlson?

  • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    9 months ago

    If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      9 months ago

      Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don’t want to die for his stupidity.

      • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        There are people over Putin too. No ruler can rule alone and without consent, his rich oligarch buddies don’t want to cruise their yachts during nuclear winter.

        • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Really dampens the mood. Not even the model-prostitutes will want to fuck in such dreary weather. Not that their consent matters to the oligarch.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It’s one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, “do it or you’re next.”

          • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.

              • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn’t have had these problems.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Okay, but that’s not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: “Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival.”

                  Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?

    • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.

      The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.