What If Putin Nukes Ukraine? 

@@davidhenke9441 I'm am.

@@DimBeam1 You're are?

@@DimBeam1 “I’m am”

@@DimBeam1 k

dude i almost fell down

A nuke on a neighbor hurts both nations, I think that if a nuke gets set off the country of Russia will have major revolutions and would have to seize the war

The physics of a nuclear reactor is fundamentally different than a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb is a runaway reaction to produce neutrons that split uranium atoms to produce more neutrons at a fast rate to release as much energy as possible. This creates a giant explosion. A nuclear reactor, however, uses techniques to slow down the chain reaction of fission to have a steady and manageable flow of neutrons to maintain a smaller, but consistent source of energy. If the system fails to properly cool itself and goes into a meltdown, it can cause an explosion, but it’s several magnitudes smaller than a bomb. Because the bomb is a runaway reaction, it does not contaminate the area anywhere near as much as a nuclear reactor. After about 2-5 years, the amount of radiation that would remain is negligible, while the meltdown of a reactor will last for many many decades.

Big difference is Nuclear and conventional weapons weren't being pointed at Moscow from the Baltics and Poland in 1986. Russia wishes to survive as a country and people, which may, as Biden himself said in the 1990s lead to nuclear war if NATO gobbles up Ukraine, therefore using nukes just to conquer Ukraine, might be seen as worth the risk

From memory, Belarus got some of the worst of the fallout -- and I don't think they've forgotten about that...

@@LoremIpsum1970 won't stop them from dropping a nuclear bomb, it's different.

But then to call their bluff as most keyboard warriors do on the internet, it would demolish main cities and people would be put in a fire ball of hell.

Russia is not currently saying they'll use nuclear weapons, so there's no bluff. Every country spells out the conditions where they'll justify using nuclear weapons, and I believe in the presentation it was both Russia has to be attacked and the existence of the Russian state has to be under threat. So even if Russia declares the annexed regions to be under their nuclear protection, the existence of the Russian state is not yet under threat, and therefore they are not justified to use nuclear weapons. I supposed that they can just use it anyway, but the problem is the cost of doing so would be to piss off everyone, including the so-called neutral or friendly countries. The other issue is what tactical purpose would it serve, probably not much, I mean nuclear weapons are powerful but one or two wouldn't really turn the tide of the war. So all in all, it seems unlikely. As for further escalation, of cause it's possible. If they only use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Nato countries can only really justify retaliating with conventional weapons, but if by doing so they push Russia into a state of, "facing an existential threat", Russia will be able to justify using nuclear weapons on Nato, and Nato will then, in turn, be able to justify using Nuclear weapons on Russia, and then obviously we're all screwed.

@@Lena-vw6ye Its not that he's calling for it jesus. Its how military and political leaders plan. Its not the first time leaders have turned cities into fireballs before. Its been going on for thousands of years. Its just the weapons of today cause more than that, that doesnt mean they wont do it. The times may have changed, but war never does.

You could easily escalate it more actually Just nuke them more

@@Lena-vw6ye Well, yes, but to not call their bluff would mean the end of Ukraine. And the US / NATO will respond to russias use of nukes with an all out aerial bombardment and missile strike. They would wipe out 50k-80k Russian soldiers in ukraine and in Black Sea in a short time.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow let that one slip past me in post...

I thought, “Did I hear right?” I had to go back and listen again.

@@OBFYT its ok habibi we all make mistakes

Some assert 7 years war was WW1 (it certainly involved a lot of countries). It’s all a bit academic.

@@duellingscarguevara Yet everyone agrees that WW2 was fought in the forties. No one calls that conflict WW1.

So if your country's politicians lose, you're willing to give away your land?

because putin doesn't want to fight with politicians, he wants to destroy the country, he wants to feel like he owns the territory and the people. So civilians are the targets, he believes that if he scares people enough, they will give up. As a Ukrainian, we'll never be scared of him

Millions of years of evolution point this direction. In fact even chimps have politics and fight wars, as revealed in studies of their social hierarchy. It's baked into our genetics to handle things this way on large scales.

Just get Putin and Biden on that boxing ring while the Americans and Russians come together and laugh 😂

Because they are tied to the pride of their country

Finally my drinking has benefits!

I'm coming after you if you have any of those Star bottle caps.

@Mvrst It's a Fallout reference

I have 50 caps now what can I buy with this

@@marcopauloch.9024 Nuka-cola

Good! Well-engineered nuclear reactors are the solution. Energy independence and climate change deterrent

You dont know Germany if you think they are ever going back to nuclear power any time soon.

It will be a good thing as Nuclear power is statistically the safest kind of energy

@@Yuki_Ika7 also the most ecologically clean

@@slavamaksakov2043 indeed!

He meant ww3 made a mistake and he said it in the comments

@@cautarepvp2079 No shit

I suppose historically we could call WW2 WW1.5 instead. What I do know is that WW any number is not good.

why? Explain what you mean

@@brokolosbinala2970 nuclear fallout more than likely. The fallout will travel back into Russia over time due to the weather patterns. That’s my guess to what he’s referencing

If it’s a smaller warhead and perhaps directed toward a western region of the country (maybe Lviv) it would not cause significant fallout to reach Russia.

Nukes are basically the give it to me or we both lose move always

If you’re going to die anyways, it’s only a thought about doing the right thing that prevents you from taking others with you. IF the power lines were deliberately cut off, we do have a dying guy here ready to take others with him to the death. A suicide bomber as president for nuclear arsenal. This is as bad as Libya or North Korea having icbms.

Hey!! Cant wait for your next upload, looking forward to it :)

long answer people will die of heat and starvation and other methods

What about the mid answer?

Fail... you should have said: Short answer: We're all dead. Long answer: We are all dead. or... Short answer: We are all dead. Long answer: We are all deeeeaaaaaaddddd!

Dead, dead, deadski?. Expired, no more, defunct, void of life.

Prepare yourself a false identity or a way to fake your death if nothing happens.

Why are you so mean to me I don’t know why you are so mean to me I don’t know why you’re so mean to me I don’t know why I don’t know what you mean to

@@Hello7488to shhh, it's okay. The nice men in the white coats will take you home soon

@@olliegoria lol (constantly clicking predictive text constantly can be so funny sometimes)

@@Hello7488to is doing well and I was thinking of going back home with her but if you want me too I could probably just do that for her too and then I will be home by myself so we could do a lot more stuff in my room if you need anything or just do that for you and your dad to get the stuff out of the car lol JK I just don’t need to get my hair cut and then it’s going on to my leg so I’m not sure what I’m going on with my leg day before my hair done so I’m just trying not polish my leg and my hair is just a bit rude I think it’s a nice idea but it’s just like me and I can’t remember how long I did my last one thing but it’s just me too I just got my back pain I got it myself I just started to do my homework so I’m not doing it myself but I just don’t feel good about that too but it’s just like a little boy

You're absolutely right about corruption. And there's one more thing to it. When you've been robbing the oil/gas country for 22 years, where did all the money go? It's all in the West. Google the kids of deputies of Russian Duma. Google the ministers and their kin. Where do Putin's daughters live? Where does all the money go? That's right. The Soviet Union was a closed system. The communists didn't keep their wealth in Europe, US etc. And even they avoided using the nukes. Cause nobody wants to win by killing himself. So yeah, it's a total bluff.

Btw what kind of global response , probably a response from those superpower countries who don't even want to send one soldier to Ukraine . And u think they would start a nuclear war and risk their main cities to Russian ICBMs

Global response? You mean NATO?

@@frozenking3500 Depends on how many are still even operational Russia's military budget is round 65-70 billion dollars the US by it's own number spends over 65-70 billion on it's nuclear program ALONE so how many of those nukes are even operational is up for serious debate that's not including A LOT of other factors in Russia such as rampant military corruption general lack of honesty in reports just look at the Moscow it was supposed to be the most advanced ship in the Russian Navy and a SINGLE Neptune missile sunk it when it shouldn't have been able to, if you look at the reports it was a surprise the ship was still even running to being with let alone a capable warship. And if i can think of this i bet you every other nation has also thought of this as to how much of Russia arsenal is even operational.

What global response? Should Russia nuke Ukraine my guess is Nato does nothing. Armchair "experts" on the internet think The West would fire Nukes back forgetting that China has nuclear weapons too, as does North Korea...and if we start shooting our nukes we've just told China and North Korea it's okay to shoot theirs. So, bye bye South Korea, bye bye Japan, bye bye U.S. etc, etc.

Yeah tryina get inside an egomaniac controlfreak dicatotr's head .. nice try The ony peoblem he is higly unprodictable

Putin's record is relatively clear, he does what he says he's gonna due. This happened in Ukraine, Georgia etc, we have no reason to think he won't launch a nuke.

dumb take tbh

Honestly, anybody can they say that they are not bluffing. It's easy to lie like denying that the palace facing the black sea is not yours. 😅😅

The stakes here are astronomical and there won't be any table left to play the game.

No, it’s for Russia’s Empire. And if he’s removed, they’ll keep fighting.

what u just said is the biggest bs ever

Putin isn't the only Russian that misses their empire

@@tjwatson2249 If you've been paying attention to Putin and his followers, that wouldn't hold much ground. It's clear a lot of even his closest followers, are scared of him and too afraid to tell their actual opinion. If he falls, it would be very unlikely that the war would continue.

@@lazarus2742 🤓

Wouldn't that have been 3? 2 was over in '45

Uh... starvation? The world is connected enough in the modern era that a major event somewhere in the world will have noticeable effects everywhere. Many countries in the north of Africa as well as the Middle East are facing serious food issues as Ukraine is no longer exporting.

radioactive fallout would reach the southlands and kill millions

Southeast Asians: There goes the countries we depend on for trade. Time to eat grubs and spiders again.

@@StuffandThings_ Africa South America dies in nuclear winter haha

@@rajveerkanojiya2985 Nah, they're too tropical and anyways nuclear winter predictions tend to put things _way_ worse in the northern hemisphere where the climate is more sensitive (less oceans) and where there will be more soot and nukes and whatnot. The southern hemisphere _will_ actually get by alright, if it weren't for the unthinkable waves of refugees all having the same idea to head south and the mass starvation since the southern hemisphere can't support that many people and doesn't have a whole lot of farmland to begin with.

The key is or be vague but not that vague. Give them a hint of what the consequences would be and it appears the US has already done that. A famous former US general has already suggested what the plan would be if Russia were to use a nuclear bomb on Ukraine . It basically would be that NATO would use a conventional weapons to destroy every single Russian soldier in or near Ukraine. The US already has an idea where most of the Russian soldiers are located and would be easy targets for the far superior weapons that the US has. Supposedly such Information would already be suggested to Russia.

Putin isnt going to nuke anyone but the nuke unit can be placed in areas where HIMAS would normally be used to to neutralise therefor stopping attacks. Beyond that i look forward to Ukraine capturing it at some point.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson If US weaponry was so far superior, why haven't the Ukrainians been able to defeat them after more than half a year? The reality is that, this conflict could go on for years or Russia could end it with nuclear bombs. In the end, if Putin had to choose between Russia or Ukraine, he's going to choose Russia, and I don't think Russia is going to allow Ukraine a bordering country as an enemy. Also, NATO is not exactly prepared either, as Germany only very recently declared their $100 billion military modernisation.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Russia lacks the ability to tell if these weapons have nuclear warheads or conventional but they will see the missiles approaching and would probably respond with nuclear weapons as Ukraine is so close to Russia meaning this strategy would just lead to US military facilities and cities getting nuked before anywhere in Russia does

being vague is strategic because it doesn't draw a clear red line. if you say specifics then Russia will commit atrocities around your red line but "technically" not crossing it

It will be the only Fallout 4 art book in the world that glows in the dark! 😅

@@adhdmonster1369 💀😭

Collect them bottle caps sir! Respect to you. All the best

Stay safe from nukes. Wishing you and your family the best of luck 🇺🇦

Well it wont be a fallout 4 book itll be illostrations of the real world, also hope youre doing ok

It's literaly the only thing that prevents NATO from patrolling Moscow.

Funny, z-man seems to doing most of the spruiking for pre-emptive, lesson teaching 1st strikes?. (Cocaine is a hell of a drug).

@@jascrandom9855 which is why they don't want nato expanding even closer to their borders, at this point it might be best to just divide the country in two.

​@@theforsakeen-9014 That's exactly the agenda of NATO. Divide the Russia and weak it as much as rest of the European countries, once Russia is dealt with, next target is China. Once all these super power rival countries are dealt with, the end goal of US is to world domination, one world government where billionaires have excessive power, and poor folks are their subjects. Countries like China, Russia should be there, because it ensures the world balance. That's why people should support Russia, and demand US led NATO to withdraw all the NATO camps, and missiles away from Russian border.

@@theforsakeen-9014 fuck no how about Russia’s stop it’s invading of it neighbors aka Ukraine and Georgia why do you think so many countries joined NATO out of fear and hate of Russia not to mention Russia is more likely to start WW3 and invade Europe if it could

Exact. Although the west naturally painted the USSR as the bad guys, it was actually the US that had, and to this day still has, an aggressive foreign policy.

@@GTAVictor9128 ussr was the bad guy

@@GTAVictor9128 Pretty sure Russia invaded multiple countries after the cold war ended. Both sides are bad.

@@GTAVictor9128 Protect your allies from being nuked is pretty valid for both sides. They both stationed missiles at the front line of the border.

@@abiku2923 But the US did it first installing their missiles in NATO-allied Turkey; The Soviet attempt to install missiles in Cuba was merely a response to that.

Putin is a master of intimidation, that’s how he gets what he wants. I think globally, no one is fearing him anymore.

What is this comment lmao. That's like saying "it will either rain tomorrow or it won't." Yeah, we know he will either nuke or not nuke Ukraine. That is hardly the question in point here.

@@DV-zv4ox exactly

ukrin🥺

You should have not given up on the nukes!

You should consider yourself a Russian now. Ukraine is extinct

@@rafanadir6958 🥺

@@rafanadir6958 that's was agreement between Ukraine, UK, US and russia on the statements of safety for new sovereign country. But since putin came to power it's all went to window

Nato will run like a crying girl

@@surya786k putin*

@@surya786k Much like how Russian soldiers run from the Ukrainian army.

@@bbd121 no not really but alright and didnt ukraine make a shit ton of "strategic withdrawals"

@@lazarus2742 Lmao Russia made so many withdrawals and left so much military equipment that some Ukrainian Infantry regiments are now entirely mechanized.

Ironic

Just one being in working order is enough to cause an ungodly amount of death and destruction.

Here's the secret, the US is, best case scenario, able to intercept a total of 44 of the 6,500 nukes Russia can launch at America, Soviet era nukes are almost impossible to intercept let alone modern ones.

They literally travel mach 20

@@iraholden3606 Putin pal everywhere

Russia has the most advanced missiles in the world, it even had better missiles during the cold war. It's one of their specialities along side artillery. It's for this reason that during the cold war the US had to continuously fly nuclear armed planes next to the Russian border to even out the odds. The Sarmat missile is quite something, look it up.

Really? Revisionist much?

Well, he is telling facts

Well one we didn’t invade using the military it was the CIA acting crazy and thinking a dozen men could take it down as for Turkey we already were pointing nukes at each other and Turkey was apart of NATO for decades longer and not to mention USA didn’t take over half of Europe and keep it hostage

Cuba deserved to be invaded

Well, to say it is the fault of the US is to take the incident, pluck it out of its historical context, and judge it solely based on the facts you presented. That, unfortunately, doesnt take into account the actions of the Soviets over the intervening years. As a Hungarian american whose family was forced to flee russia after the family farm was shelled, I think it's important to remember just who the west was standing up to.

I've been watching a lot of stuff about the JWST and I wish that we could develop the technology to go to these planets faster or send probes to these places, but it seems the budget for these companies are pretty low compared to what the army gets.. And it sucks that we may extinct ourselves before we find life living out there.

I mean, in reality we as a species won't go extinct in the event of a nuclear war. Yeah billions dead, but not extinct.. so the silver lining I guess

Carl Sagan was a fool, and you'd be a fool to listen to him. NO MAN gets to decide whether or not Mankind goes extinct. Man IS NOT God. I hate how godless thinking has been normalized.

Funny how nuclear power gives orders imma claim I got missiles

If a nuclear weapon attack is conducted against Ukraine, it’s really not going to matter what class of nuclear weapon is used.

They are both very destructive

Yea tactical nuke it a media buzz word they dont exist

Both gurantee retaliation by other nuclear nations Israel, India, Pakistan and China have nukes

@@railroadforest30 can be very small and targetted. I expect use of them ...

@Bingusian Chungusan Bingo!

@Bingusian Chungusan better then nothing. It maximizes the chances of survival when you have to make a 10 second decision. You don’t know where the bomb is gonna drop but you might be able to survive even if you use something as mundane as a desk.

People feel much better when they have a plan of something to do when something bad happens, even if it only increases the odds by 1%. We want to feel in control.

Yeah a desk protects u from radiantion and heat wavee 🤡🌚...

@@RealPlatoishere It actually does the heat radiation burns everything on it's sight being out of it's direct sight increase chance of not getting burn't alive by the initial heat

Yeah I just got a new mic, still learning how to use it...

@@OBFYT cool! Love your videos man

You better find someone to send you food

@@selbalamir farms exist and were surrounded by water

Well, until the flood of refugees from up north completely overwhelms the local agriculture. In a nuclear scenario, literally nobody wins. The southern hemisphere can't support many people and people don't like to just sit around and accept an apocalypse.

@@Salaci nuclear winter would like to disagree with ur farms

@@RealPlatoishere my place doesn't experience winter

Spelling Nazi here. It's "invade". Not "invides".

@@CarlosMartinez-vk4nd I think they meant invites

no

What do you think Russian doesn't have any hacker even North Korea is good at Cyber security Iran, China .

@@rimondas6729 ?

Attacking any country's satellites is a huge escalation equal to directly attacking this country's military forces. Great response if you want to see nukes falling down from the sky a few days later.

The Americas would either make a peace deal, or wait until Putin is assassinated and then make a peace deal. There's zero reason for them to join in a nuclear war. What on earth would be in it for them?

that just sounds like the conditions for total nuclear war

Ngl as much as I obviously don't want Putin to drop the nuke, I would really really like to see the US unleash absolute hell on the Russian military

At which point Russia lobs a nuke at US/NATO in response to any conventional response. If he used a nuke against a non-nuclear power (Ukraine) what makes people think Putin won't just go all in at that point...

@@KirkFickert Because of MAD? Ukraine cannot respond to a Russian nuke with its own because it has none. NATO/USA could and most probably would respond to a russian nuclear attack with its own nuclear arsenal, resulting in Mutually Assured Destruction.

Petraeus?🤣

The missiles that carry conventional weapons can also carry nukes, Russia will just assume this is a Nuclear response and fire their own nukes at the US mainland, all this tactic does is ensure you are nuked first

this is interesting

They will addidas ukraine

Never say never. 😅

Of the 6,000 or so nukes, say only 1% are operable. That's still 60.

This is just coping. Russias main priority is to keep their nukes up and running. Don't lie to yourself just to avoid being afraid of the future. Russian nukes are a threat, and we need to take this seriously.

This is completely delusional. Most of their nukes are inherited from USSR and they were tested hundreds of times without fail

Thank you. Why no one mentions this?

@@maxdeboer9619 because Russia has a lot of nukes, even if nearly all of them didn’t work, a lot that’s remaining would still work and do damage

I think you can find the perfect nuclear summer temperature if you stand close enough to the blast, i think its pretty warm in there.

Oh I do hope not

How would you suggest we move forward

It’s never the Wests fault apparently, we all know about the missiles in Cuba but we disregard the fact that the US has put nukes in turkey first and all , the US always has the *moral highground* somehow even tho it’s known to topple democracies that opposed it from Iran to South America , it y’all check the media on Ukraine before the war it’s not portrayed the way it is now at all , but suddenly when the wests benefits are in danger Ukraine transforms from a corrupt poor state with questionable ideologies to a beacon of democracy that the us should morally defend Edit : and no I ain’t a Russian bot dw

@@AA-ju6mk That's just what a Russian bot would say.

@@AA-ju6mk Russian bot identified. Take your 15 rubles, comrade. You earned them.

you got double standards

Its Russian nukes stored in Ukraine If they did not give them up, Moscow had the right to take them by force

That isn't how it works, in all likelihood the US would make an immediate peace deal. America isn't gonna ruin it's economy//society for Ukraine there is zero precedent for that. America currently has nothing to lose, it's not gonna change that.

Oh you’re for reverse colonialism? Dose that mean you’ll give the Mapuche your bunker?

Global south wins again?

Eww, a world populated by Argentinans. 🤢

You probably wouldn't survive, current scientific models points towards a massive mass extinction, eradicating basically all vertebrate animals (including all fish), due to causing a nuclear winter lasting for several years. So if you survived in a bunker, you would find a empty world, devoid of all animals, and not even any green plants outside of the tropics. The tropics would also be devastated, as rainforests cannot handle temperatures below freezing, and lack of sunlight for 3+ years, but it is probable that some tropical plants and grasses would survive thanks to hardy seeds and root systems. There probably would be no vegetation at all in most of Europe (or any place else that's not the tropics) for many decades. There would also be severe soil degradation, since there would be zero vegetation to stabilise it, so most soil would quickly errode away, leaving much of the world quite reminiscent of mars. Soil renewal is a natural process, and new soil would eventually form, but it would take several hundred years. You would also have great difficulty trying to cross the Atlantic, as there would be no working technology or industry to produce metal ships, and no lumber, since almost all trees would be extinct. Maybe you could find some small carbon fiber sailboat in working condition, to sail across the vast, dead and fish-less ocean. But besides the remains of destroyed civilisation, you'd never find anything but empty land, too ruined to settle for many lifetimes. Also, since all people died, a significant number of all nuclear power plants probably had meltdowns, with no one around to try contain it. So much of the world would be severely irradiated, not only from nuclear fallout from weapons, but from hundreds of Chernobyls and Fukushimas, all over the world. The increased erosion would also put a lot of iron into the oceans, which would deplete oxygen by as much as several percent. There would also not be any photosynthesisng algae or vegetation around to replenish it. The oxygen would not become low enough to kill a human, but you would probably feel permanently out of breath due to the lower partial pressure of oxygen. So you might never be able to run again without passing out from hypoxia. Pretty bleak stuff. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

Orgulloso de vivir en Argentina, mientras todo el cono sur vamos a ser potencia, el resto va a estar todo destruido

Probably where there is the most concentration of Ukrainian troops, or maybe Kherson.

I'm in London, so I vote for #2 London 👍 This is like the 80s all over again...

Kharkiv, and then either Paris, London, or Warsaw. For something that drastic it would have to be big.

Kyiv and London are likely targets. DC too.

Source or it's fake

for today only 1 country use nuclear weapon against enemy and it is not evil empire of Russia, it were white true democracy and peacekeeper named USA

That's actually bs. The dangers of radiation have been completely overblown over the last few decades. Especially when a nuke is detonated a few hundred meters in the air, fallout is actually minimal. The VAST majority (over 90%) of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima died due to direct blast effects. And with modern fusion bombs, where the majority of the energy is provided by deuterium and tritium, the effects of radiation are even less, since there are less fission byproducts.

@@user-zb8tq5pr4x that's when the massive city-sized fire storms from after the detonations put enough soot into the atmosphere to reduce the sun's intensity to the point where we have wide scale crop failure due to the cold, and worldwide famine :')

@@ZentaBon That's the thesis, yes. I don't buy it. (Also, the fires were not supposed to be the thing that causes nuclear winter, the soot would not float high enough into the stratosphere to stay there for a long enough time to cause any cooling. That kind of debris would fall to the earth with the first rainfall). The thing is, the US detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in their tests in the 50s and 60s, and we haven't seen ANY global cooling effect due to that whatsoever.

@@ZentaBon Personally, I think a lot of information about nuclear bombs is completely overblown to scare the general population. It would not be as bad. Hundreds of millions would die, sure, but humanity would go on.

thank goodness THAT never happened

russians

Both sides

not it's not, proxy war of similar proportion were already fought in vietnam and afghanistan before.

@@theforsakeen-9014 yep, if anything its catastrophized

The rational logical response is not do anything since Ukraine isn't even an ally and they wouldn't have returned the favor

I agree. Military response would be a really bad idea

The best response without nuclear retaliation to screw us all would be a full blockade of russia, obliterating any russian forces in Ukraine (though stopping at the border and not using any NATO ground troops) and fasttracking Finland, Sweden, and other potential members into NATO. It would easily spark a civil war within russia, show the consequences of nuclear action, and likely avoid full blown nuclear conflict.

@@19382q It would still affect NATO doe? Like you know that Ukraine borders NATO countries right? And it wouldnt be a NATO response but a global fucking one

@@lordmilchreis1885 i doubt that the USA dropped 2 bombs nobody cared we're spending billions fighting a war we cant win and ukrainian people are paying the price

You do realise the swiss are dependent on imports for their survival. Not self sufficient. So after a nukefest the swiss would starve to death. Also how friendly would they be to a nonswiss citizen consuming their very limited food in a postnuke world? Friendly now doesn't mean friendly tomorrow. You really want to starve to death on the streets of Zurich assuming swiss cops don't just execute you as a useless consumer of goods?

Appeasement was to buy time for rearmament. Of course, the Nazis rearmed faster.

Appeasement worked

@@jascrandom9855 actually, UK and France barley did anything after the appeasement so no, that’s not what it was for. In fact, after Germany invaded Poland and the allies declared war, nothing happen for well over half a year. They really didn’t prepare that much so they took that time to start preparing.

@@iraholden3606 it works if you are germany in the 30’s

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Intent is not the same as results. Buying time was the intent. The plan just failed spectacularly.

PaTROllinG thE moJaVE aLMOst makes YOU wisH fOr a nuClEar WinTeR

it is the way

You wouldn’t survive it

@@microagressionist1516 Then I was weak. Carry my legacy while draging your ballz across the streetz of the ashfall. goodluck brother.

Just say no! The world can't legally be -nuked to oblivion- ended without *our* consent!

Permission granted. Thank you for your service.

Cum

strongest argument

@@ismarius1749 really is

Russia isn’t known for holding fair and free elections. So when, where and how did this referendum take place?

It would functionally destroy the world.

there would be so much radioactive fallout, entire ecosystems would collapse. The whole world is fucked, me and you both.

​@@randomuser5443 economicaly yes most likely, but most people on earth will live. No catastrophy or anything in human history killed more than 10 percent of the worlds population, also many countries wouldnt even be invlolved in such a war

Well, it will fundamentally cripple Human civilization for a long while.

@@randomuser5443 Depends on how many nukes are used,where they hit,how powerful they are and how long the war drags on

The thing is, the term "tactical nuke" is super misleading. The weakest nukes yielded today are still magnitudes stronger than the Fat Man nuke. It's just the nature of how weak those nukes were compared to what we can create today. It'd be catastrophic, nothing remotely subtle or tactical.

Chances are, the nukes are so far behind in maintenance that they'll just explode on Russian soil.

@@ricoanderson6626 It's only misleading to people who have zero clue about how warfare works. Tactical nukes are exactly that. They are weapons to be used on the tactical level: on the battlefield. The difference between strategic and tactical isn't size.

Except japan killed 25-35+ Million people and still didn’t want to surrender while Ukraine has lasted less then a year of true war if Russia starts nukes then it will be seen as genocide and massacres

They didn’t set anything in realization because the US was the only one with Nuclear Weapons at the time. Who could tell them to not use a weapon they didn’t know about (in full retrospect)