Yea, I don't think we'd have to worry about it much though.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
28 points (83.3% liked)
Science
13206 readers
8 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Given that the US is currently debating whether to start a full on WW3, it's absolutely something to worry about right now.
I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source for that?
It's probably a discussion for allowing Ukraine to do what they want with long range weapons.
Russia has made pretty direct statements about what happens then - they will consider NATO to be in direct war with Russia.
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
load more comments
(28 replies)
US is about to approve deep strikes into Russia. The difference here from previous escalations is that the strikes would have to be done by NATO personnel. Russia stated that it would consider this to be a direct act of war by NATO against Russia because it would be NATO troops launching strikes into Russia. At that point we are effectively in WW3 between NATO and Russia.
Thank you! I read most of the first one and skimmed the second -- I don't get why they strikes would need to be done by NATO personnel.
Both articles allude to the fact that Putin considers it to be an attack by NATO because they'd be NATO-supplied weapons, but given his track record, he'd probably say anything more than turning a blind eye is an offense by NATO.
The strikes have to be done by NATO personnel because these missiles use NATO satellite guidance, and are designed to only be operated by military personnel of the respective countries. This was earlier confirmed by Scholtz as a justification for not sending taurus missiles to Ukraine, and the leaked conversation of German officers.
Western media omits the important part of the statement, but If you listen to what he says, he's specifically talking about NATO personnel operating the weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBjK08eM1Ys
That could make sense. I'm not familiar enough with military weaponry to know how true it all is
I'm sure Scholz is properly informed on the subject https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html
Ah, so if they just provide training to members of the Ukrainian military, then everything's fine in Putin's eyes? Loopholes are great
What part of the concept of a direct conflict are you struggling with?
I'm not talking about nuclear war. I'm talking about the climate after a nuclear war - what the article and the headline is about. The implication of my comment is that there would be no people to worry about the climate because they'd all be dead on account of global thermonuclear war.
Ah yeah, vast majority of human population isn't going to be worried about much of anything once we're dead.
Hopefully Russia ceases their invasion soon then. They could have ended it any time they wanted, but for some reason, they insist on keeping their "three-day, special military operation" going.
I'm rooting for peace. Hopefully, Russia comes around.
It's quite obvious that Russia is not going to just pack up and go home at this point. The only question here is whether the west would end the world in a nuclear holocaust if it can't have Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
That's an interesting way of framing Russia ending the world in a nuclear holocaust because Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Russia's sphere of influence.
It would be best for everyone if Russia would stop the escalation, and I hope they do. If not, we have to find a better solution to imperialism than appeasement, because that doesn't work long-term either.
load more comments
(11 replies)
view more: next ›