This implies nuclear war is an option on the table, definitely a bad call. Additionally, wouldn't this mean the US has ample security? Based on their routine war crimes I'd think the opposite. Their weaponry does however ensure worldwide chaos, especially if a country wants to drop the dollar or has natural resources to exploit.

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This implies nuclear war is an option on the table

It is under certain conditions

Additionally, wouldn't this mean the US has ample security?

Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.

Based on their routine war crimes I'd think the opposite.

How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Absolutely. No one would realistically think about an attack on American soil, just like with any other nuclear power.

So thats it, got nukes and you'll get space, otherwise bend over as the US is coming for all your shit? Maybe its the insane spending on weaponry which allows the US to run a muck overseas destroying any shred of security in other country's.

How so? USA terrorising the rest of the world does not contradict my initial statement.

Your statement permits terrorism, weapons equaling security is just downstream lockheed martin & friends propaganda. Where as security by definition means being free from danger or threat. Russian and US both possessing nukes derails any global security and more so in those two country's, no?

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

I did't claim nuclear weapons being a solution for world peace. It is just that in the current state of the world, Russia would be the least to need "security guarantees" because no one would attack them anyway. You, however, make it appear I suggest to arm up anyone. But whatever, just keep twisting my words to fit your narrative ✌️