Is Putin bluffing about using nukes? Should NATO call his bluff? (POLL)

[Rigby5]

It is perfectly legal to arm Russias enemies.

There is no effort to put nukes on the russian border. You are a liar and that is proven fact

It is illegal to arm the Ukraine because it violates treaties.
The US has constantly tried to put nukes on the Russian border, and actually did it twice.
It took considerable effort on the part of Russia to get them removed.
Turkey, Poland, etc.
It is an offensive act of war to put nukes on the border of any country you are hostile to.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is illegal to arm the Ukraine because it violates treaties.
The US has constantly tried to put nukes on the Russian border, and actually did it twice.
It took considerable effort on the part of Russia to get them removed.
Turkey, Poland, etc.
It is an offensive act of war to put nukes on the border of any country you are hostile to.

No it does not and no it is not illegal

No the US has not CONSTANTLY tried to put nules on their border we have no need to do so.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

In the 1950s it was necessary to put nukes that close but since then no effort has been made to put them trhat close

We have no need to do so with ICBMs and SSBMs and so on.

NATO never said they want to put nukes there and they have no need or desire to do so. You are making up lies as you go

A half an hour is not plenty of time dimwit

Wrong.
It was NEVER necessary to put nukes on Russia's borders, and nothing has changed.
ICBMs and SSBMs change nothing.
We still want to put nukes on Russia's border, have done it twice in Turkey and Poland, and are still constantly trying to do it.
Plus Zelensky has constantly said he wants nukes.

A half hour is plenty of time to active counter measures.
Putting nukes on Russia's border would cut response times down to zero because then cruise missiles flying below radar could be used.

And don't forget, economic sanctions are totally illegal war crimes, so the US has already committed an act of war.

 

[Rigby5]

No it does not and no it is not illegal

No the US has not CONSTANTLY tried to put nules on their border we have no need to do so.

Yes it is illegal to put nukes in the Ukraine because it violates treaties.
And YES we NEVER had a "need" to put nukes on Russia's border, but we did it twice and constantly keep trying to do it again.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
It was NEVER necessary to put nukes on Russia's borders, and nothing has changed.
ICBMs and SSBMs change nothing.
We still want to put nukes on Russia's border, have done it twice in Turkey and Poland, and are still constantly trying to do it.
Plus Zelensky has constantly said he wants nukes.

A half hour is plenty of time to active counter measures.
Putting nukes on Russia's border would cut response times down to zero because then cruise missiles flying below radar could be used.

And don't forget, economic sanctions are totally illegal war crimes, so the US has already committed an act of war.

It was during the early years of the cold war.

Yes trhey change everything we need not put any nukes on their border they have no defense against ICBMs and SSBNS

You are a liar we do not still want to and no one EVER attempted to put them in Poland.

A half hour is no time and there are no counter measures.

Economic sanctions are LEGAL'

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes it is illegal to put nukes in the Ukraine because it violates treaties.
And YES we NEVER had a "need" to put nukes on Russia's border, but we did it twice and constantly keep trying to do it again.

It is not illegasl to arm them with javelins or stingers it violates no treaty and no one wants to put nukes there.

We did have a need to do so in the fifties but no more you are a liar we have NOt constantly tried to

 

[Rigby5]

It was during the early years of the cold war.

Yes trhey change everything we need not put any nukes on their border they have no defense against ICBMs and SSBNS

You are a liar we do not still want to and no one EVER attempted to put them in Poland.

A half hour is no time and there are no counter measures.

Economic sanctions are LEGAL'

The US missiles in Turkey were early on, but it was recently that we put nukes in Poland, until we finally had to remove them.

The 2 and 3 stage rockets we put in Poland had nuclear warheads. That is how they shoot down incoming bombers or missiles. Nothing else is reliable.

{.... The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned American missile defense base. It was intended to contain 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles that had a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The first planned complex was to be located near Redzikowo, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a U.S. narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. EIS was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland from 2018. ...}

Economic sanctions on civilian commerce have always been illegal since the 1906 Geneva conventions.
You can't starve out cities any more. It is illegal. The fact we do it all the time, does not make is any better, but worse.
And by the way, economic sanctions also violate the US constitution.
The 1st amendment protects freedom of political expression, including if someone supports the beliefs of another nation, with commerce.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent the government from money from your commerce with another country, without compensation.
And the 9th and 10th amendments prevent the feds from doing anything not explicitly authorized, and economic sanctions are not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The US missiles in Turkey were early on, but it was recently that we put nukes in Poland, until we finally had to remove them.

The 2 and 3 stage rockets we put in Poland had nuclear warheads. That is how they shoot down incoming bombers or missiles. Nothing else is reliable.

{.... The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned American missile defense base. It was intended to contain 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles that had a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The first planned complex was to be located near Redzikowo, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a U.S. narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. EIS was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland from 2018. ...}

Economic sanctions on civilian commerce have always been illegal since the 1906 Geneva conventions.
You can't starve out cities any more. It is illegal. The fact we do it all the time, does not make is any better, but worse.
And by the way, economic sanctions also violate the US constitution.
The 1st amendment protects freedom of political expression, including if someone supports the beliefs of another nation, with commerce.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent the government from money from your commerce with another country, without compensation.
And the 9th and 10th amendments prevent the feds from doing anything not explicitly authorized, and economic sanctions are not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Wrong.

We NEVER placed nukes in Poland. Also wrong conventional warheads can shoot down nukes reliably and none of the weapons systems you described use nuclear warheads.

that is fact and absolute and YOU ARE A LIAR.

There is nothign illegal about economic sanctions and none of those amendments or Geneva apply.

We have never tried and do not wish to put nukes in Ukraine or Poland and never have

 

[kyzr]

The US missiles in Turkey were early on, but it was recently that we put nukes in Poland, until we finally had to remove them. The 2 and 3 stage rockets we put in Poland had nuclear warheads. That is how they shoot down incoming bombers or missiles. Nothing else is reliable.

{.... The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned American missile defense base. It was intended to contain 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground-Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles that had a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The first planned complex was to be located near Redzikowo, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a U.S. narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. EIS was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland from 2018. ...}

Economic sanctions on civilian commerce have always been illegal since the 1906 Geneva conventions.
You can't starve out cities any more. It is illegal. The fact we do it all the time, does not make is any better, but worse.
And by the way, economic sanctions also violate the US constitution.
The 1st amendment protects freedom of political expression, including if someone supports the beliefs of another nation, with commerce.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent the government from money from your commerce with another country, without compensation.
And the 9th and 10th amendments prevent the feds from doing anything not explicitly authorized, and economic sanctions are not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

1. You proved that the missiles in Poland were defensive, not offensive.
2. The US Constitution has nothing to do with sanctioning a ruthless dictator, his thugs, and his invading military, duh. It only applies to the US Federal Government and their power structure.
3. The US and France guaranteed Ukraine's security if they gave up their nuclear missiles in the "Budapest Memorandum".

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the...

military-history.fandom.com

"The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."

NATO is obligated to help Ukraine defend itself since it gave up its nukes.