Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "What will be the aftermath of the Ukraine war if Russia is defeated | Sir Richard Barrons" video.

@thepoliticalanalyst5684 Your point being? I guarantee you that with American help, those codes could have been compromised. At a bare minimum, they could have been dismantled for components, particularly the radioactive material to be used in power plants. If giving them up was so symbolic, then why make such a big deal about it? You are trivializing the hand-over. That Russia got to keep the warheads instead of them being dismantled IS a big deal.
2
@gigikontra7023 Yeah, that was part of my point about dismantling the devices. You and I have the creativity to think outside the box. But this guy clearly can't think outside of his official talking points. A clear case of Pavlov's Dog.
2
Under NATO doctrine, there is zero distinction between a tactical or artillery nuke and a Strategic or Ballistic nuke. The people talking about the specter of low yield nukes have to realize that ANY use of nukes is an automatic escalation and will NOT stop the fighting but instead result in vaporized cities.
1
@UCisVv1XfV7rW6VAhc1RZEzg Clearly you are being a stereotypical "RUSSIA! RUSSIA RUSSIA!" partisan. Your first point falsely assumes that the Ukrainians would not bring in outside experts. It would not even have to be NATO, they could have brough in the neutral Swiss or Sweds. Your refusal to consider that shows your intellectual dishonesty. Your second point assumes that the US would retain that cold War mentality. History has shown that after the breakup in 1991, the US very much changed its thinking and calculus. Case in point is the Baltic States and Poland. So your premise is predicated on bad assumptions reddening it nothing more than wishful thinking. Your third point while initially has SOME merit, again fails to consider that the US, UK, France, or Japan would not effectively outbid anyone else who wanted to get their hands on those lose nukes. They all have a vested interest in acquiring them if for no other reason to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Your arguments are nothing more than shilling for the Kremlin, not predicated on hard data. Your logic is weak and fatally flawed because of the glaring holes in your arguments.
1