Russia just threatened the UK with Nukes

Mentioning nuclear weapons to a country that has a strong alliance with the U.S. would not happen under normal circumstances. This shit has gone too far. Our standing in the world is taking a massive blow and Trumpsters taking it, no lube.

They have used fighting words against Britain over the last few years.

It is not our obligation to defend Britain. Let them pay for their own military.
 
It's almost like shit is really going down lately because we foolishly elected a man-child as leader of our country while he was compromised by a foreign state.

But nah, couldn't be. Just MAGA and stuff. Can't wait to see Trumpbots defend Russia threatening doomsday for having a finger pointed at them.

Lately? It's been over a year since Trump got into office, and Russia has been having a finger pointed at them from the very beginning.

Your premise is simply flawed and biased.
 
This is the second time I've seen you mention that game.
Is it on the level of say, xcom2?

Totally different type of experience.

I'd say it's more fun per dollar, that's for sure.

X-COM in general can get to be quite tedious and it's a lot more money.

I have a thread up in the video game forum here if you want to check it out, don't want to derail too much about it here.
 
They have used fighting words over against Britain over the last few years.

It is not our obligation to defend Britain. Let them pay for their own military.

Has Russia mentioned nukes before?

That is out of bounds and the right doesn't want to admit this fact.
 
Well, the President Of The U.S. won't be saying or doing anything to stop them if he has anything to do with it.

Ofc not, hes scared zhitless of Vladimir.

At least May is talking tough. Lets see if the UK actually does anything about it though.
 
I'm sorry I asked for more than casual speculation. But it's clear you're married to the idea so continuing the discussion would be like me beating on an empty pinata.

Can you quote that. Sounds like a misunderstanding. Maybe you're just confusing that with you not actually being convincing (that Russian aggression is caused by the presence of Trump).
I asked for some logic and facts to back up the claim. Instead I got mostly insults. :(

Hold on one second, let me quote you when offered logic and facts in an attempt to get a discussion going...

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Tell us exactly what you think will happen next.

Sounds like condescending bullshit in place of a rebuttal that signals you have no intention of a legitimate exchange of points and ideas.

So why should I do anything but laugh at the bullshit you're posting now? "I just wanted a discussion logic and points, that's why I responded like a child when someone gave them to me...." is what you're saying, and it's inspiring nothing but chuckles.

Im saying any interference into our election is the end result of previous administrations allowing far too long a rope with Russia. They haven’t really stopped being our adversary, even after the Cold War.

I didn't blame Trump for being the entire reason USA and Russia have issues, I faulted his comical loyalty to Putin as the cause of this most recent emboldened behavior. They're doing this because they know they're gonna get away with it as long as Trump is where he is.
 
Has Russia mentioned nukes before?

That is out of bounds and the right doesn't want to admit this fact.

I think they have actually. This story is dominating google searches but I think they made some threats like this before.

What is making us look weaker imo is the constant shake up of his team. It makes the country look bad. Who can have faith in this administration?

here is one from last year:

A senior Russian politician responded aggressively Monday to comments by the U.K.'s defense minister suggesting pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Russia is an option for London, claiming the U.K. would be completely annihilated by Russia's nukes in response.

RUSSIAN SENATOR: U.K. WILL BE 'WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH' IF IT USES NUCLEAR WEAPONS

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-attack-uk-wipe-nation-face-earth-589794

They would say it no matter who is President. They expanded under Obama too. They thumbed their nose at him and did military operations.


And actually, Britain threatened Russia with nukes first.
 
Last edited:
Hold on one second, let me quote you when offered logic and facts in an attempt to get a discussion going...



Sounds like condescending bullshit in place of a rebuttal that signals you have no intention of a legitimate exchange of points and ideas.

So why should I do anything but laugh at the bullshit you're posting now? "I just wanted a discussion logic and points, that's why I responded like a child when someone gave them to me...." is what you're saying, and it's inspiring nothing but chuckles.



I didn't blame Trump for being the entire reason USA and Russia have issues, I faulted his comical loyalty to Putin as the cause of this most recent emboldened behavior. They're doing this because they know they're gonna get away with it as long as Trump is where he is.
I’m saying they could do whatever they wanted under the last two administrations as well. If the US wasn’t going to put our foot down after they invaded a sovereign country trying to join NATO, why should we after the mere threat of force? I think you only care about Russia right now because you haven’t been paying attention the past couple years. Anyone who’s been paying attention could’ve told you long before the election interference that they were hostile to US interests.
 
I think they have actually. This story is dominating google searches but I think they made some threats like this before.

What is making us look weaker imo is the constant shake up of his team. It makes the country look bad. Who can have faith in this administration?

here is one from last year:

A senior Russian politician responded aggressively Monday to comments by the U.K.'s defense minister suggesting pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Russia is an option for London, claiming the U.K. would be completely annihilated by Russia's nukes in response.

RUSSIAN SENATOR: U.K. WILL BE 'WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH' IF IT USES NUCLEAR WEAPONS

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-attack-uk-wipe-nation-face-earth-589794

They would say it no matter who is President. They expanded under Obama too. They thumbed their nose at him and did military operations.


And actually, Britain threatened Russia with nukes first.

Sounds like we need to take a tougher stance against Russia, no?
 
I’m saying they could do whatever they wanted under the last two administrations as well. If the US wasn’t going to put our foot down after they invaded a sovereign country trying to join NATO, why should we after the mere threat of force? I think you only care about Russia right now because you haven’t been paying attention the past couple years. Anyone who’s been paying attention could’ve told you long before the election interference that they were hostile to US interests.

Yeah I remember them threatening the UK with nukes and openly interfering in our elections on an unprecedented scale before a cartoonish candidate who they just happened to have by the balls was running for president. Was a totally regular occurrence.

I'm not saying they weren't hostile to our interests, I'm saying it's never reached this level before and the reason it has is obvious; our leadership.
 
Have to agree with Russia here. People keep poking and prodding the bear it's bound to wake up.
Are you kidding me? Who's poking Russia here? They are the ones who poisoned a double agent and their daughter with a toxic nerve agent and also gravely injured a British police officer. Putin and company need a time out and I feel the only country that could do that is the US but knowing Trump that won't happen.
 
Sounds like we need to take a tougher stance against Russia, no?

Putin has actually been saying that for years. More than once he has reminded the world that Russia is a nuclear power. They bring that up a lot. Those are more implicit threats but still pretty serious threats.

And he is right. Russia's massive nuclear arsenal makes them a strong power and very relevant. How tough can you really be with a nuclear superpower? I mean we could act tougher but Russia can still take down the world with it. MAD is still there.
 
It's not the quantity of death the weapons bring that make it a weapon of mass destruction, but the type of weapon.

These were advanced military grade nerve agents that are classified as WMDs against all sorts of treaties everyone has agreed to.

No one is threatening anyone here except Russia. Teresa May is just asking what the fuck?

Russian agents sprinkled WMDs in our ally's city and you think Teresa is the aggressor for asking why?
"Ready to take action" and "strike back" sounds a little more aggressive than just asking questions, and a lady from the Russian foreign ministry said to think before issuing threats to a nuclear armed country, not "we're gonna blow you to smithereens if you talk about us".
 
Yeah I remember them threatening the UK with nukes and openly interfering in our elections on an unprecedented scale before a cartoonish candidate who they just happened to have by the balls was running for president. Was a totally regular occurrence.

I'm not saying they weren't hostile to our interests, I'm saying it's never reached this level before and the reason it has is obvious; our leadership.
It most certainly was at this level before. From the 50s through the 80s. Russia literally placed nukes in Cuba as a threat against us directly. The reason it reached this level again is not because of this most recent election. It’s because the last several presidents became careless and thought Russia was no longer a threat. We sacrificed our intelligence capabilities in Russia in order to focus more on the Middle East. We have slowly degraded our strategic bombardment capabilities to the point where they aren’t a main threat any longer. We allowed Russia to run roughshod over foreign policy without lifting a finger. If you truly, genuinely want to back Russia off, it’s going to take a drastic increase in intelligence spending and a revamping of our armed forces to project overwhelming power. If not, it doesn’t matter who our next president is, they’ll be pushed around too. If you think the Trump administration is the only problem, and that Russia would be pacified by a different administration without the changes I listed, you are sadly mistaken.
 
"Ready to take action" and "strike back" sounds a little more aggressive than just asking questions, and a lady from the Russian foreign ministry said to think before issuing threats to a nuclear armed country, not "we're gonna blow you to smithereens if you talk about us".

Well... Russian agents did just sprinkle WMDs in her city.. does that merit some sort of response?
 
I didn't blame Trump for being the entire reason USA and Russia have issues, I faulted his comical loyalty to Putin as the cause of this most recent emboldened behavior. They're doing this because they know they're gonna get away with it as long as Trump is where he is.
N. Korea threatens actual nuclear attacks all the time, did Trump "embolden" them too? This isn't some bombshell, Russia has made their nuclear capabilities quite well know for years.
 
Putin has actually been saying that for years. More than once he has reminded the world that Russia is a nuclear power. They bring that up a lot. Those are more implicit threats but still pretty serious threats.

And he is right. Russia's massive nuclear arsenal makes them a strong power and very relevant. How tough can you really be with a nuclear superpower? I mean we could act tougher but Russia can still take down the world with it. MAD is still there.

It's a bluff because they can't make money on a nuclear war. It fucks up all the avenues that are making them money. We are being hustled by Russia and I do not like it.
 
Well... Russian agents did just sprinkle WMDs in her city.. does that merit some sort of response?
Sure, some response, mostly finding out for sure rather than saying you're going to "strike back" because something is "likely". For sure if they'd killed a bunch of civilians, obviously the US would support any actions, but this does not seem appropriate for the US to intervene or issue any threats ourselves.
 
Back
Top