Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Russia to send nuclear weapons to Belarus as a warning to NATO | DW News" video.

  1.  @thanos7691  The nukes in question come under NATO's nuclear sharing policy. It means the host countries are deciding if and how to use them. None of these host countries borders Russia. Russia, on the other hand, has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, which borders nuke-free Poland and Lithuania. Now Belarus, which borders three NATO countries no less, is gaining nuclear weapons. Can you spot the hypocrisy?
    15
  2.  @kosarkosar7683  Tell me more about Germany allegedly wanting to withdraw from NATO's nuclear weapons sharing agreement. When exactly did it happen? Hard facts, please.
    7
  3. ​ @annan7728  You're giving off a bad impression of your intellectual capabilities if you can't tell depleted uranium and nuclear propulsion apart from tactical nuclear weapons in terms of destructive power. The latter are veritable weapons of mass destruction, whereas the former are not.
    5
  4. Uh, unlike Russia with regard to Belarus, the US isn't putting nukes on foreign soil without the consent of the countries concerned.
    5
  5. Unwittingly, Putin is telling us that he's very concerned about the rumoured Ukrainian counter-offensive. He fears another rout, just like the one his Orcs suffered during last year's Kharkiv counter-offensive. Once it starts, there's no stopping it, so Putin can only try to prevent it from happening. But Ukraine is not perturbed.
    2
  6. It's four European countries, as you're obviously referring to NATO's nuclear sharing programme. The host countries have a big say in if, how and when they're used, even to point of having to deliver the bombs themselves. Furthermore, the Americans don't install nukes on foreign soil without the say-so of the country in question. Oh, and try to refer to the UK by its proper name, especially since British nuclear ICBM subs are based in Scotland. England and Scotland are not the same, but both are in the UK (for the time being, anyway).
    2
  7. It would be the ultimate sign of weakness, as in admitting that Russia can't beat Ukraine with conventional military means. If Putin somehow manages to cling to power after that, Russia will start disintegrating, as the separatists see their chance. Or do you think it will fly that Putin starts nuking Russia next? If he does, then someone will put him down like a mad dog.
    1
  8. Rather, when Putin is out of ideas, he instinctively resorts to nuclear sabre-rattling. It's a daily occurrence by now.
    1
  9. We should report your comment for "Suicide or self injury".
    1
  10.  @annan7728  There you go again, embarrassing yourself. There's more to nuclear weapons than uranium alone. If they hear of your nonsense, your physics and chemistry teachers will face-palm themselves something furious.
    1
  11.  @arturobianco848  I'm think you and Thanos are being deliberately obtuse. Let's forget individual countries and look at the NATO-CSTO border then. The CSTO has nuclear weapons very close to NATO, a mere 50 km from the Polish border, in Kaliningrad. In contrast, it's over a thousand kilometres from Büchel, where Germany's B61 nuclear bombs are stored, to the nearest CSTO border, in Kaliningrad. Savvy?
    1
  12.  @arturobianco848  Of course it makes a difference. The less advance warning, the harder it is to apply counter-measures. Also, tactical nuclear weapons have limited range. It matters a great deal were you keep them. I suggest you do your homework before you continue this discussion. You come across like a dilettante.
    1
  13.  @arturobianco848  Now I know you're obtuse. Basically, you're saying that tactical nuclear weapons don't matter, because ICBMs exist. You could take your theory a bit further and claim that conventional military forces no longer matter, because there are ICBMs. Yet we're witnessing a conventional war in Ukraine. As I suggested earlier, before you concoct your ad-hoc theories, you should study up on well-established nuclear deterrence theories and doctrines such as flexible response and MAD. They all call for a balanced response. After all, when the ICBMs and SLBMs are let loose, it's game-over for humanity. When things remain tactical, we have a chance of surviving as a species.
    1
  14.  @eioclementi1355  It was a British politician, Stanley Baldwin, who said "the bomber will always get through". In 1932, to be exact. At the time, multi-engine bombers could outpace single-engine fighters. It wasn't to last.
    1
  15.  @eioclementi1355  Are you saying passenger jets are bombers now? Besides, you should see the cockpit doors they've put on passenger jets after 9/11. But I suppose air travel isn't your thing.
    1
  16.  @eioclementi1355  *Germanwings. If you have more inane replies for me, please direct them to the bit bucket. Life's too short.
    1
  17.  @eioclementi1355  B-i-t b-u-c-k-e-t.
    1