I understand the posturing. Attacking the EU needs to be presented as a terrible idea, but when people start talking about using nukes loosely, then the other side might also consider them fair game. I guess, in my opinion, using first strike nukes is never justified, and if the EU or anyone does it then they're no better than the aggressors. I would prefer we hold ourselves to higher standards instead of letting the bad actors bring us down to their level.

[–] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We are mostly talking about Russia, wich is the country that does nothing as much as threatening to nuke countries...

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes and we shouldn't let them bring us down to their level. First strike is never justified, but second strike in response could be. They don't care about their people, so they probably want to goad others into nuking them. It would free them up to use theirs and claim it's justified. Let's not play into their hands.

[–] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

Nah, first strike is 100% justified if you attack EU.

[–] DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

@MrCookieRespect @School_Lunch but it's not. @anderspuck had a great video and vlexler a solid addendum how Russian aggression would occur. The biggest sword that putin has if Trump questions art 5 is indeed nuclear blackmail. That is imo the reason why the US has put nukes in RAF Lakenheath (UK has no tac nukes). But a big big big reminder: NATO is 99% posture and a 'promise:. It was never contested. Art. 5 is an' invitation to discuss', nothing more (sadly).

[–] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com -1 points 9 months ago

If you think that you are part of the problem.