anyone that doesn't support a child-sniffing, pant-pooping, lifelong corrupt "Catholic" remembers.Mongolian Christmas said:
Who members Trump = WW3?
Quote:
The conditions specifying the possibility of nuclear weapons use by the Russian Federation are as follows:
a) arrival of reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
b) use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction by an adversary against the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
c) attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions;
d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.
Why, and at who?suburban cowboy said:
I do think Putin will launch them
Lots of ambiguity in there (like "other weapons of mass destruction"), but otherwise, I would expect something similar.TexAgs91 said:
For the OP, these are the pre-conditions the article listedQuote:
The conditions specifying the possibility of nuclear weapons use by the Russian Federation are as follows:
a) arrival of reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
b) use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction by an adversary against the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
c) attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions;
d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.
Wouldn't we expect the US to have the same pre-conditions?
Maybe our gay ass country should have stayed the hell out of this border skirmish between two crappy eastern euro countries.Bulldog73 said:
When you consider that Russia considers (at least substantial parts of) Ukraine as a part of it, and add in the phrase "and its allies", this becomes a very worrisome stance on first use of nuclear weapons. It could, for instance, say that Ukraine's use of missiles and drones constitute a justification for first use. Or an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear program.
Considering Russia's conventional arms have proven to be archaic and largely ineffective, their willingness to have broad justifications for first use of nuclear weapons is a big problem.
Staying out of the Ukraine thing would have given Putin even more leverage to continue collecting former soviet nations. Being isolationists does nothing but embolden countries that would love nothing more than to see the U.S. destroyed.El Gallo Blanco said:Maybe our gay ass country should have stayed the hell out of this border skirmish between two crappy eastern euro countries.Bulldog73 said:
When you consider that Russia considers (at least substantial parts of) Ukraine as a part of it, and add in the phrase "and its allies", this becomes a very worrisome stance on first use of nuclear weapons. It could, for instance, say that Ukraine's use of missiles and drones constitute a justification for first use. Or an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear program.
Considering Russia's conventional arms have proven to be archaic and largely ineffective, their willingness to have broad justifications for first use of nuclear weapons is a big problem.
We tried to reason with the left but this became part of their religion. They were salivating for WWIII, hellbent on it.
Biden is not up to the task of cleaning the drool off his own chin.Bulldog73 said:
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/03/19/the_leaked_russian_nuclear_documents_and_russian_first_use_of_nuclear_weapons_1019241.html
Putin has to go, but very, very carefully. Don't think that FJB is up to that task.
