• Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The proposed resolution “views the use of any tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.”

    Doesn’t seem unreasonable. Any nuclear attack or disaster in Ukraine would affect neighboring countries.

    • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah shelling Nuclear power plants and using depleted uranium ammo is something only NATO clowns can do, when Russia is using something radioactive, we suddenly start to think about the neighbors!1!!1!

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In what sense? That the very gentlemen who tipped their hats and said to Russia’s concerns on toxic ammo “bla bla”, now assemble because of the same concerns, are called reasonable?

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you really caught @terror_alarm on twitter in 4k

            if he was a part of this conversation hed be entirely shook, im sure

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey mr big brains, that was only for example sake, I had the talk between the Bri’ish gents and Russia in mind, I don’t even know what this twitter account is

      • zurma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand if you are sarcastic? Literally a few months ago the Britbongs announced they sent depleted uranium ammo to Ukraine, known for causing increased cancer rates and birth defects in the regions they are used. Japan said they will donate trucks which were used during Fukushima and still are radioactive to Ukraine. Now, NATO suddenly cares about contaminates? LMAO this only proves Westerners see Ukrainians as subhumans just as Russians, they put them through stuff they would never accept on their soil.

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            anything on ‘the use of any tactical nuclear weapon’ or ‘the destruction of a nuclear facility’, what with that being what the conversation is about and all

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              …, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory…

              This you left out on purpose?

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                yes, what with it not being one of the conditions for an “immediate response”, and actually just being elaboration on the actual conditions

                thats why it says “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

                as opposed to “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, or dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

                so sure, on purpose, that purpose being treating the text as if it says what it actually says

                • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  what? My point still stands NATO likes to sh*t but not to eat sh*t

    • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait until the wind is blowing from the west, drop a nuke, viola! No fall out on NATO, no justification for an Article V response.

  • exohuman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sorry, I thought we were in 1970 again. Continue on with your proxy wars and nuclear annihilation threats.

    • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear nuclear threats from Russia on a weekly to monthly basis for the past year. I don’t even care anymore. If they want to do it they’ll do it anyway. So the only thing we can do is to be prepared and answer appropriately instead of letting us get all submissive and let them do whatever the hell they want. Nuclear weapons shouldn’t be a free pass to act like an imperialistic asshole.