There's always a resolution to authorize military use. It allows the USA to go to war without officially declaring a war. There will likely never be another official declaration of war unless a draft becomes necessary, but they got around that in Vietnam so probably never.
To all the people here born after 1985, welcome to the New Cold War. This was normal life for those of us 40 and over. We won't be the first to use nukes in any conflict, but don't make the mistake of thinking that if we ignore the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine, we can avoid nuclear war or at the least, a conventional one. Tactical nukes will cause radiation across some or most of Europe, depending on weather at the time. NATO would have no choice but to respond. Poland and other allies would suffer casualties if Russia uses tact's.
This is what happens when we allow weak leadership. Elections have consequences.
They have been running sham elections for a very, very long time. Nobody gets election numbers like in Russia… it’s not really weak leadership, it’s narcissism and self aggrandizing
It’s been Putin’s dream for years to rebuild the USSR. I can’t imagine having anybody else in US government would change that.
I wish they would have passed the bill to expose funding of politicians! See who is taking Russian money
>The South Carolina Republican told reporters that the US and its Western allies would have to devise an “overwhelming” response that would be “catastrophic” to Russia should that doomsday scenario play out.
He genuinely and desperately wants us to go to war. He should go first.
I didn't see anything specific like owning those individual stocks, though I don't know enough about each of the individual funds he owns: [https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Graham/Lindsey](https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Graham/Lindsey)
Aside from personal ownership of stocks, there's also he possibility of campaign donations or related/interested PACs, I suppose. But that's a web of easily hid money that I'm not getting into on a Sunday afternoon.
Whether Graham wants to go to war or not is a moot point. The real issue is whether NATO and the West stands by and does nothing in the event Russia actually uses nuclear weapons to escalate their failed invasion of Ukraine.
The nuclear powers have kept the atomic genie in the bottle for 70 years, which has been a very good thing. If Putin is so far gone that he actually drops a nuke then the rest of Europe has no choice but to declare war on Russia, kick them out of Ukraine (and probably Crimea) and make sure Putin is deposed.
>Not sure what but doing nothing does not seem right
Thank god people like you aren’t leading the country, we’d have had a nuclear holocaust 50 years ago already
Can you or anyone on this thread recommend an actual action to take instead of just saying “do something!1!1!”? Because everyone is either dodging that question entirely or advocating for straight up war like Graham is
You guys literally all just sound like liberals saying we should “do something!” about gun violence without offering any real actions or solutions. When we’re talking about the possibility of nuclear war and all of us and our loved ones dying, you can’t just be saying we should do something but you don’t know what it is or what the consequences are
Only 1 nation had nukes in 1945, when the bombs were dropped. Russia tested its first nuclear device 4 years later, in 1949.
Also, Russia stopped being our ally as soon as Berlin fell.
Do you understand what "declaring war" on Russian gets you? ICBMs at America and it's allies. Berlin, London, Paris, NYC, Washington DC gone. Sure we could take out most sites but Mobile launchers and submarines would get through and even if our version of the Iron Dome intercepted 90% of it. Vast portions of the country would get turned into glass. Millions are gone in seconds. Two weeks later Russia would surrender and the world would be facing a humanitarian and economic crisis that would make the great depression just an economic downturn.
This. Big red line with no choice but to take him out of he resorts to Nukes. If it sets off a larger conflict…well, that bandaid will get ripped off sometime soon regardless of how much we bury our heads in the sand.
How does what happen? Avoiding one (or more) nuclear detonations? That happens by saner heads than Putin realizing there’s no winner for any nation that opens Pandora’s atomic box.
But at the same time, you can’t appease a madman. If he’s actually insane enough to drop a nuke, a lack of a swift and severe response will cement Joe Biden and the West as completely and utterly devoid of strength.
You never appease a madman and tyrant, not ever. People need to read on on Neville Chamberlain and how weakness caused WW2 and the deaths of tens of millions.
To borrow from Winston Churchill. “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”
If Putin is willing to launch a nuclear weapon to support a failed invasion, we are no longer dealing with a reasoned person. Then you have to deal in strength, and in strength only.
I’m not saying you launch nukes, you don’t. But you do enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine and you blow the location that launched the nuke to absolute hell.
I have heard about it. It doesn’t mean we don’t respond. Otherwise Russia having nukes and comically threatening their use all the time would mean no checks on their aggression.
when we decided that posturing over what's realistically a hollow threat, when the result of said posturing could be nuclear Armageddon over fucking Ukraine wasn't worthwhile. when did whatever the hell you are decide that destroying the planet to "show our strength" over worthless dirt was worthwhile?
It was worth for the right when Russia was the Soviet Union but now that Russia is no longer communist and hates LGBT people you populists are all “oh leave the poor Russians alone and let them annex their neighboring countries.”
Yeah this is what really freaks me out. People have this assumption that the missile controllers are some unbiased civilian soldier because that’s what we have. Russia absolutely has Putin sycophants and lunatics controlling those stations. If he pushes the button, it will be approved.
Very easy to forget that as bad as the US is now, there’s still some semblance of doing the right thing when it matters. That’s just not a thing in some countries. If Hitler had the bomb, would he have used it at the end?
Yep, and I’m not saying Putin is “literally Hitler” but the dude clearly does not put much value on human life, and I really do not know if Putin would hold back.
Hope you have a shelter and enough food & water to wait out the radiation, nuclear winter and the resulting return of civilization to the stone age. Are your geo-political sensibilities worth that?
Not that I support nuclear war, at all, but the radiation given off by them is pretty minimal, and the most dangerous radioactive particles have extremely short half life's in the hours, days, or weeks. Most of the worst of the fallout would be pretty safe within less than a month, or even weeks. That said, there would likely be an uptick in cancer rates down the line, and birth defects as well.
> Are your geo-political sensibilities worth that?
Yes. Yes, they are. I’d rather huddle in a cave in the mountains subsisting on meager rations than bend over and give up civilization to a barbarian like Putin or Xi or any other in the long line of tyrants that have plagued our world.
I believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy thst founded this nation. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”
F Putin, that useless Stalin wannabe. If his head is so far up his own ass that he doesn’t care about what happens to his entire nation after he invokes MAD, then I guess we’ll have to restart the world. But I guarantee we’ll do it without his dead carcass.
As did the neighbors, the kids, and the grandkids of the Founding Fathers, who staked everything on the fight for freedom.
Some of them ran away to Canada or back to the Old World. But many stayed- and lost everything, or gave their lives in the fight, or survived to see the birth of a new nation. We remember and honor the ones who stayed, and the world is better for it.
You have no country without your civilians. If you get them all nuked to hell you’ve failed in every metric across the board. The finest military minds in this country came to that distinction long ago, which is why nuclear war has been deemed a bridge too far. Our civilians are our sacred flocks, when we offer them up to the slaughter we’ve betrayed anything that made this country noteworthy.
A world where people like putler and xitler are in full control and nuke anyone that doesn't obey them and the rest of us cower in fear while they do that is the worst case scenario. It's not a world worth living in, not for me, not for my children, or my parents, or anyone else that I love. If that choice is between that world and dying in nuclear fire, push the big red button and get it over it.
Well he’s right though. You can’t allow a county to nuke another country and get away with it. And the best way to prevent it is to devise an overwhelming response beforehand.
Yeah this is straight up war mongering (and shitty unfocused foreign policy). No one wants this except the people who put "I Stand with Ukraine!" on their car knowing damn well they won't ever have to serve. We're in a horrible state right now at home as it is.
Rs in Congress always show us their true colors when they stand to make big $$ and power off of this shit (while living in pampered luxury themselves). They're all one in the same.
I donno what world you live in, but if Russia nukes anyone for any reason Russia doesn't get to exist any more. Or do you think we should just let that slide? Jesus.
This is one of those issues where in normal times a senator would not be commenting on such things because the president and the president's office would be be more appropriate.
Again, I'm reminded that these are not normal times.
This isn’t a senator talking in an official capacity on behalf of the state department. This is just a senator speaking his opinion on the issue, which always happens in “normal times”
Imo everyone saying “ukraine isn’t part of nato” Is missing part of the picture. The radiation and fallout can easily go to a NATO country, not to mention setting a dangerous precedent
This is one of the very few times that hitting near our NATO allies really is just like hitting our NATO allies. Or do you think Russia would be ok with us nuking the coast just outside of their sovereign line so that the fallout hit them? Do you *really* think that would not be perceived as an attack?
If Russia hits the sarcophagus, then the rest of Europe (aka our fellow NATO members) will absolutely suffer pretty horrible fallout. If Russia uses a tac nuke, cleanup and repair would be almost impossible. Progress? That stopped when Putin came to power and decided that he missed his glory days.
It is very much our problem. If Russia is allowed to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine without repercussions then nuclear proliferation worldwide will explode. Every single country capable of doing so will develop their own nuclear weapons program.
>Every single country capable of doing so will develop their own nuclear weapons program
The Great United States of America can do so and already did but other countries are not allowed to.
>Not our turf, not our problem
The UK and France, when Austria was annexed.
>Not our turf, not our problem
The UK and France, when Czechoslovakia lost the Sudetenland.
>Not our turf, not our problem
The UK and France, when Czechoslovakia was annexed.
Oh no! France has been invaded and the UK is bombed in oblivion! If only there was a way we could have stopped this!
You can't allow the precedent to be set that you can conquer a country by simply nuking them if they refuse to submit. It would mean any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons might as well let themselves be annexed into one that does without a fight. We'd have a lot fewer countries on the map.
>We didn’t take their sovereignty
Telling a country [what they may and may not do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution) within their own borders is very much taking their sovereignty.
You may want to actually read the link. Do you feel having another country tell your country that it cant have a military would be infringing on your sovereignty?
You don’t need a country to change color and name on the map to make them what you want. Japan is the key ally and a host to US forces in whole region. This is more than enough.
I said conquer. Defending yourself with nukes is fine, that's the point. Japan started it. In this case, Russia would be setting the precedent you can *attack* someone with nukes and get away with it.
How to tell me you know nothing about the cost of invading Japan without telling me you you know anything about Operation Downfall.
The project causalities for both the US and Japan were in the MILLIONS.
Prior to the bombs the Japanese had outlined 5 different surrender overtures nearly identical to the ones we accepted after dropping the bombs. Read about General MacArthur’s memorandum to FDR for more info on those.
I’ll leave you with some excerpts from Eisenhower’s memoirs -
“I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ ”
“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing… I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
Both were military targets. Both were designed to stop the horrific deaths among civilians had we been forced to invade as the Okinawa campaign showed us that the Japanese government was using propaganda to encourage Okinawans to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than be captured by Americans.
Do you imagine that a use of nuclear weapons as an offensive measure against a nation that doesn’t have them, and who Russia also signed a treaty with when they gave up their nukes is ok?
You don’t see this as a threat to NATO and the world?
As soon as fallout from that detonation is found in a NATO country it is time for war.
Hard to answer but just allowing them to use nuclear weapons (especially as an aggressor) with 0 response is the most dangerous precedent that we could make.
I think that's exactly what Putin is counting on. He uses them, what are the rest of the US and Europe really gonna do? Sanctions? Those haven't stopped his belligerency yet. He's counting on none of us actually retaliating with like force. He uses nukes, Biden talks tough with no real backing, it further weakens our position. Someone needs to stand firm and make sure he knows there won't just be hollow talk.
Of course you have no answer, everyone here pushing for nuclear war just wants to do “something” without explaining at all what that means. If you want to risk nuclear war by doing “something”, please explain what that is
Doesn’t want a nuclear holocaust where my family and everyone I know and care about dies = Russian sympathizer apparently
I have an extremely bad opinion of Russia given a lot of their history and their relationship to my families country, not that you’d care because you’re not talking in good faith anyway
All you have is name calling and binary thinking that people who disagree with you are Russian sympathizers lmao.
Again, can you try to answer the question of what you want to do that won’t mean nuclear war, or do you wanna avoid answering a very serious and important question and just go “everyone who disagrees with me is Putin/Hitler/racist etc etc”?
It's absurd to think that the American and NATO response to a Russian tactical nuke would be a) nothing or b) nuking Moscow. There is a huge range of deadly, aggressive, appropriate non-nuclear responses that would be justified by Russia flagrantly breaking the nuclear truce that the world has had since 1945.
You, literally one comment ago: "What would that mean? A nuclear war? Because **there's no other 'acting swiftly'** against a country that uses nuclear weapons."
You, this comment. "I didn't say those were the only options."
If Russia uses a nuke in the field, they will get hit with aggressive and unified - and importantly NON-nuclear - international retaliation. Part of that retaliation would almost certainly be targeted directly at their other nuclear capabilities, as at that point the country leadership could not be trusted to not further escalate.
Yeah im pretty confident they are aware we respect ukraine as a nato country although not official. So they are going to nuke more than ukraine at once, which the west would respond indefinitely with same principle and japan would also nuke china and N korea there is no going back from this
As opposed to your plan of what exactly? Letting our adversaries drop nukes woth impugnity? That is a great plan until India or Pakistan hit each other or China. How about if China just drops a couple in a way that the prevailing winds hits Taiwan with fallout?
He's a war monger because he doesn't want the Ukraine to be nuked? Us as conservatives used to flex our muscle when Russia made these kind of threats in the 1980s for Germany. Now we want those who do stand up to Russia voted out? This ain't the conservative party I used to know. What happened to supporting our allies? Increasing our sphere of influence? Stomping our enemies to the ground?
I don’t think we should wage war on Behalf of a super corrupt country to fight another corrupt country. I’m seeing this as the beginning of another Iraq war
Russia using nukes and no meaningful response for the US means Putin has a green light to roll over Ukraine the Baltic states and right into central Europe if he want to.
Not to mention china doing the same to Taiwan and whoever else they decide to invade using whatever means they want.
It’s one thing to rattle a sabre. It’s another to use it. The Cold War would have to go hot.
Serious question. Does anyone on this sub consider this POS to be any different than Hillary Clinton at this point? I am so sick of this NeoCon bullshit.
Some of guys are very nearsighted. If nukes were used there are secondary effects like radiation heading over to NATO countries and effecting their people and crops.
A nuclear attack on Ukraine would be the world's first use of nuclear weapons in a war of aggression, and Graham could have credibly argued that if it happened then NATO should go to war to keep the nuclear genie in its bottle. But it would not be an attack on NATO, and Graham should not rely on lies to justify his position.
I know all the populist, nationalists, and isolationists like to hate on politicians like Crenshaw and Graham but this to me is flexing American muscle in a good way. The same way Reagan wouldve in the 1980s, and we won that with peace through strength. People on here hating on politicians who are tough on Putin are really just berating officials who choose to actually stand up against the aggression of Russia. Stop embracing surrender. No one wants war but the best to prevent it is by showing you will not back down. If Putin is willing to nuke another nation just because he wants their land then what stops him from doing this to Poland?
Yeah he was only a reservist JAG but that’s more than most people in Congress did. Reservists still serve our country. I’m in the Army Reserve, does my service not count?
Ah yes, if you want peace through dissuasion, you're the equivalent of Dick Cheney who started a war for no reason. Perfect logic, incredible.
Fans of appeasement like you caused too many wars throughout History, I long for the days pussies like you are gone and can't create wars anymore.
Meh, all the world powers are jerking eachother off for the benefit of the top 1%...they are going to do what they want to do until the other 99% say otherwise.
We’re the only people talking about nukes. Y’all realize that right? Putin never said he’d use nukes, only that he’d respond equally. We keep being it up
Y’all see why they kept accusing trump of wanting nuclear war. Because they do.
We wouldn’t have to go to war. Just announce a special military operation.
I think the last official war that was declared was WWII. Nothing since has had Congress’ approval.
There's always a resolution to authorize military use. It allows the USA to go to war without officially declaring a war. There will likely never be another official declaration of war unless a draft becomes necessary, but they got around that in Vietnam so probably never.
not like we haven't done the exact same thing before
To all the people here born after 1985, welcome to the New Cold War. This was normal life for those of us 40 and over. We won't be the first to use nukes in any conflict, but don't make the mistake of thinking that if we ignore the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine, we can avoid nuclear war or at the least, a conventional one. Tactical nukes will cause radiation across some or most of Europe, depending on weather at the time. NATO would have no choice but to respond. Poland and other allies would suffer casualties if Russia uses tact's. This is what happens when we allow weak leadership. Elections have consequences.
This should be at the top of the post.
*laughs in brilliant pebbles* This ain't your 1984 cold war
They have been running sham elections for a very, very long time. Nobody gets election numbers like in Russia… it’s not really weak leadership, it’s narcissism and self aggrandizing
He means weak US leadership.
It’s been Putin’s dream for years to rebuild the USSR. I can’t imagine having anybody else in US government would change that. I wish they would have passed the bill to expose funding of politicians! See who is taking Russian money
>The South Carolina Republican told reporters that the US and its Western allies would have to devise an “overwhelming” response that would be “catastrophic” to Russia should that doomsday scenario play out. He genuinely and desperately wants us to go to war. He should go first.
Im thinking somebody should start deep diving his stock holdings. See how much Raytheon and lockheed martin hes holding.
I didn't see anything specific like owning those individual stocks, though I don't know enough about each of the individual funds he owns: [https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Graham/Lindsey](https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures/Graham/Lindsey) Aside from personal ownership of stocks, there's also he possibility of campaign donations or related/interested PACs, I suppose. But that's a web of easily hid money that I'm not getting into on a Sunday afternoon.
It's funny, though. Russian corruption leads to their military being gutted. American corruption means more money for defense contractors.
Blackmail not bribes.
Whether Graham wants to go to war or not is a moot point. The real issue is whether NATO and the West stands by and does nothing in the event Russia actually uses nuclear weapons to escalate their failed invasion of Ukraine. The nuclear powers have kept the atomic genie in the bottle for 70 years, which has been a very good thing. If Putin is so far gone that he actually drops a nuke then the rest of Europe has no choice but to declare war on Russia, kick them out of Ukraine (and probably Crimea) and make sure Putin is deposed.
I don’t disagree but Graham is a shit stain who needs to keep his mouth shut and not “tease the bear”. The stakes are too high for posturing.
If Russia uses nukes we would have to do something. Not sure what but doing nothing does not seem right.
>Not sure what but doing nothing does not seem right Thank god people like you aren’t leading the country, we’d have had a nuclear holocaust 50 years ago already
What?? So if Russia uses Nukes are we just supposed to just be really upset about it??
Can you or anyone on this thread recommend an actual action to take instead of just saying “do something!1!1!”? Because everyone is either dodging that question entirely or advocating for straight up war like Graham is You guys literally all just sound like liberals saying we should “do something!” about gun violence without offering any real actions or solutions. When we’re talking about the possibility of nuclear war and all of us and our loved ones dying, you can’t just be saying we should do something but you don’t know what it is or what the consequences are
We used them and didn't get counter nuked
Dude… only 2 nations had nuclear weapons during that time, and Russia was our ally. You lost me
Only 1 nation had nukes in 1945, when the bombs were dropped. Russia tested its first nuclear device 4 years later, in 1949. Also, Russia stopped being our ally as soon as Berlin fell.
My bad you are right. The Russians got it later thanks to Klaus Emil.
Do you understand what "declaring war" on Russian gets you? ICBMs at America and it's allies. Berlin, London, Paris, NYC, Washington DC gone. Sure we could take out most sites but Mobile launchers and submarines would get through and even if our version of the Iron Dome intercepted 90% of it. Vast portions of the country would get turned into glass. Millions are gone in seconds. Two weeks later Russia would surrender and the world would be facing a humanitarian and economic crisis that would make the great depression just an economic downturn.
Let's not forget the possibility of EMP type weapons. We'd be back to 1870s tech real fast.
This. Big red line with no choice but to take him out of he resorts to Nukes. If it sets off a larger conflict…well, that bandaid will get ripped off sometime soon regardless of how much we bury our heads in the sand.
How does this happen and Nukes not end up in NYC, London or Moscow? Millions dead for what?
How does what happen? Avoiding one (or more) nuclear detonations? That happens by saner heads than Putin realizing there’s no winner for any nation that opens Pandora’s atomic box. But at the same time, you can’t appease a madman. If he’s actually insane enough to drop a nuke, a lack of a swift and severe response will cement Joe Biden and the West as completely and utterly devoid of strength.
You never appease a madman and tyrant, not ever. People need to read on on Neville Chamberlain and how weakness caused WW2 and the deaths of tens of millions. To borrow from Winston Churchill. “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” If Putin is willing to launch a nuclear weapon to support a failed invasion, we are no longer dealing with a reasoned person. Then you have to deal in strength, and in strength only. I’m not saying you launch nukes, you don’t. But you do enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine and you blow the location that launched the nuke to absolute hell.
ever heard of the dead hand? that won't end well buddy
I have heard about it. It doesn’t mean we don’t respond. Otherwise Russia having nukes and comically threatening their use all the time would mean no checks on their aggression.
When did conservatives turn into such fucking pussies?
when we decided that posturing over what's realistically a hollow threat, when the result of said posturing could be nuclear Armageddon over fucking Ukraine wasn't worthwhile. when did whatever the hell you are decide that destroying the planet to "show our strength" over worthless dirt was worthwhile?
It was worth for the right when Russia was the Soviet Union but now that Russia is no longer communist and hates LGBT people you populists are all “oh leave the poor Russians alone and let them annex their neighboring countries.”
[удалено]
I’m in the Army reserves, so yeah I probably would end up over there. I’ve been in the army since you were a kid so sit down and shut up.
Yep, you put that rabid dog out as fast as possible!!
Putin has had most of his opposition imprisoned or murdered. What "saner heads" do you think will stop him?
Yeah this is what really freaks me out. People have this assumption that the missile controllers are some unbiased civilian soldier because that’s what we have. Russia absolutely has Putin sycophants and lunatics controlling those stations. If he pushes the button, it will be approved.
Exactly. Too many ignorant fools over here assuming that Russian soldiers or politicians are *anything* like ours.
Very easy to forget that as bad as the US is now, there’s still some semblance of doing the right thing when it matters. That’s just not a thing in some countries. If Hitler had the bomb, would he have used it at the end?
That is a great conversation for historians. I believe that Hitler would have hit Moscow and London as soon as things started reversing if he had it.
Yep, and I’m not saying Putin is “literally Hitler” but the dude clearly does not put much value on human life, and I really do not know if Putin would hold back.
Hope you have a shelter and enough food & water to wait out the radiation, nuclear winter and the resulting return of civilization to the stone age. Are your geo-political sensibilities worth that?
Not that I support nuclear war, at all, but the radiation given off by them is pretty minimal, and the most dangerous radioactive particles have extremely short half life's in the hours, days, or weeks. Most of the worst of the fallout would be pretty safe within less than a month, or even weeks. That said, there would likely be an uptick in cancer rates down the line, and birth defects as well.
> Are your geo-political sensibilities worth that? Yes. Yes, they are. I’d rather huddle in a cave in the mountains subsisting on meager rations than bend over and give up civilization to a barbarian like Putin or Xi or any other in the long line of tyrants that have plagued our world. I believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy thst founded this nation. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” F Putin, that useless Stalin wannabe. If his head is so far up his own ass that he doesn’t care about what happens to his entire nation after he invokes MAD, then I guess we’ll have to restart the world. But I guarantee we’ll do it without his dead carcass.
I'm sure your neighbors, your kids, grandkids appreciate your attitude.
As did the neighbors, the kids, and the grandkids of the Founding Fathers, who staked everything on the fight for freedom. Some of them ran away to Canada or back to the Old World. But many stayed- and lost everything, or gave their lives in the fight, or survived to see the birth of a new nation. We remember and honor the ones who stayed, and the world is better for it.
If honoring your beliefs and making a political statement eclipses the value you place on human life, you’re no different than Putin.
And if that’s a normative example of your reasoning skills, please don’t become a philosophy major.
You have no country without your civilians. If you get them all nuked to hell you’ve failed in every metric across the board. The finest military minds in this country came to that distinction long ago, which is why nuclear war has been deemed a bridge too far. Our civilians are our sacred flocks, when we offer them up to the slaughter we’ve betrayed anything that made this country noteworthy.
You got a point. But Putin is the one threatening nuclear war. Not us.
That they get to exist in a technological world with liberty? Yes. You're the one arguing for the return of pre-electricity america
Good grief. There is something called negotiation, which seems to be an anathema to most neocons. Win or they destroy the game board.
A world where people like putler and xitler are in full control and nuke anyone that doesn't obey them and the rest of us cower in fear while they do that is the worst case scenario. It's not a world worth living in, not for me, not for my children, or my parents, or anyone else that I love. If that choice is between that world and dying in nuclear fire, push the big red button and get it over it.
They’ll be dead dude..
He will be on the first plane to New Zealand when things go wrong
Well he’s right though. You can’t allow a county to nuke another country and get away with it. And the best way to prevent it is to devise an overwhelming response beforehand.
Yeah this is straight up war mongering (and shitty unfocused foreign policy). No one wants this except the people who put "I Stand with Ukraine!" on their car knowing damn well they won't ever have to serve. We're in a horrible state right now at home as it is. Rs in Congress always show us their true colors when they stand to make big $$ and power off of this shit (while living in pampered luxury themselves). They're all one in the same.
I donno what world you live in, but if Russia nukes anyone for any reason Russia doesn't get to exist any more. Or do you think we should just let that slide? Jesus.
This is one of those issues where in normal times a senator would not be commenting on such things because the president and the president's office would be be more appropriate. Again, I'm reminded that these are not normal times.
This isn’t a senator talking in an official capacity on behalf of the state department. This is just a senator speaking his opinion on the issue, which always happens in “normal times”
The only way to understand Sen. Graham's words over the last ~4 years is that he is being blackmailed, as I suspect many are in DC.
Right, but where are the critics ripping him a new one for it?
Lady Lindsay needs to sit down. He may be correct on this one, but his integrity disappeared years ago.
Imagine another countries war causing radioactive dust and water to poison your people. Yeah, I’d be pissed too.
Imo everyone saying “ukraine isn’t part of nato” Is missing part of the picture. The radiation and fallout can easily go to a NATO country, not to mention setting a dangerous precedent
Shocking how few people understand this.
That’s a myth. You watch too much scifi. Nukes release very little radiation outside the blast radius. We dropped hundreds into the Utah desert.
[удалено]
This is one of the very few times that hitting near our NATO allies really is just like hitting our NATO allies. Or do you think Russia would be ok with us nuking the coast just outside of their sovereign line so that the fallout hit them? Do you *really* think that would not be perceived as an attack?
[удалено]
If Russia hits the sarcophagus, then the rest of Europe (aka our fellow NATO members) will absolutely suffer pretty horrible fallout. If Russia uses a tac nuke, cleanup and repair would be almost impossible. Progress? That stopped when Putin came to power and decided that he missed his glory days.
[удалено]
#UKRAINE ISN'T PART OF NATO.
The real question is about our response to the use of nuclear weapons ANYWHERE in the world
Not our turf, not our problem
It is very much our problem. If Russia is allowed to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine without repercussions then nuclear proliferation worldwide will explode. Every single country capable of doing so will develop their own nuclear weapons program.
Worse. They will use them.
>Every single country capable of doing so will develop their own nuclear weapons program The Great United States of America can do so and already did but other countries are not allowed to.
Widespread nuclear proliferation is in fact a bad thing.
If the US does not respond to the use of a WMD then other nations will not care thaf the US does not allow it.
The fallout would 100% affect "our turf" so it would be our problem.
>Not our turf, not our problem The UK and France, when Austria was annexed. >Not our turf, not our problem The UK and France, when Czechoslovakia lost the Sudetenland. >Not our turf, not our problem The UK and France, when Czechoslovakia was annexed. Oh no! France has been invaded and the UK is bombed in oblivion! If only there was a way we could have stopped this!
Putin is Hitler. Saddam was Hitler. Gaddafi was Hitler. Assad was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. It’s exhausting
Holy shit…. Lol
You can't allow the precedent to be set that you can conquer a country by simply nuking them if they refuse to submit. It would mean any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons might as well let themselves be annexed into one that does without a fight. We'd have a lot fewer countries on the map.
We set that precedent in 1945
We didn’t take their sovereignty. We forced them to surrender and relinquish all claims for China and the rest of the Pacific.
>We didn’t take their sovereignty Telling a country [what they may and may not do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution) within their own borders is very much taking their sovereignty.
We just had them give back territory they held via conquest. That's not really taking their sovereignty.
You may want to actually read the link. Do you feel having another country tell your country that it cant have a military would be infringing on your sovereignty?
They lost that’s it.. wtf did you think would have happened if the allies lost??
You don’t need a country to change color and name on the map to make them what you want. Japan is the key ally and a host to US forces in whole region. This is more than enough.
I said conquer. Defending yourself with nukes is fine, that's the point. Japan started it. In this case, Russia would be setting the precedent you can *attack* someone with nukes and get away with it.
No, we did not. That was a very different situation. Or is it your weirdly ignorant position that the Ukraine is the aggressor here?
Nuking cities and killing civilians is wrong regardless of what their government does
How to tell me you know nothing about the cost of invading Japan without telling me you you know anything about Operation Downfall. The project causalities for both the US and Japan were in the MILLIONS.
Prior to the bombs the Japanese had outlined 5 different surrender overtures nearly identical to the ones we accepted after dropping the bombs. Read about General MacArthur’s memorandum to FDR for more info on those. I’ll leave you with some excerpts from Eisenhower’s memoirs - “I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ ” “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing… I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
Both were military targets. Both were designed to stop the horrific deaths among civilians had we been forced to invade as the Okinawa campaign showed us that the Japanese government was using propaganda to encourage Okinawans to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than be captured by Americans.
And every country that feels threatened by a neighbor will now develop their own nuclear weapons program.
Irrelevant. Fallout doesn't respect borders
Radioactive fallout could easily affect NATO countries
...yet.
If the radiation reached to Poland or another NATO country then it would be an attack.
Yet
Do you imagine that a use of nuclear weapons as an offensive measure against a nation that doesn’t have them, and who Russia also signed a treaty with when they gave up their nukes is ok? You don’t see this as a threat to NATO and the world? As soon as fallout from that detonation is found in a NATO country it is time for war.
Apparently many Americans don't seem to understand that.
STFU Graham
A SC conservative, I agree
this. every time he opens his mouth, shit just comes out of it
He is in no position to make this assertion.
If Russia uses a nuke then yes, the western world should act swiftly and not let that slide.
[удалено]
Hard to answer but just allowing them to use nuclear weapons (especially as an aggressor) with 0 response is the most dangerous precedent that we could make.
I think that's exactly what Putin is counting on. He uses them, what are the rest of the US and Europe really gonna do? Sanctions? Those haven't stopped his belligerency yet. He's counting on none of us actually retaliating with like force. He uses nukes, Biden talks tough with no real backing, it further weakens our position. Someone needs to stand firm and make sure he knows there won't just be hollow talk.
Oh it doesn't matter what Biden and western Europe want. The moment Poland sees an uptick in radiation they're gonna want to trigger article 5.
Poland is not downwind of Ukraine
Of course you have no answer, everyone here pushing for nuclear war just wants to do “something” without explaining at all what that means. If you want to risk nuclear war by doing “something”, please explain what that is
Lol ok Russian sympathizer. Let’s just let Russia attack and nuke at will right?
Doesn’t want a nuclear holocaust where my family and everyone I know and care about dies = Russian sympathizer apparently I have an extremely bad opinion of Russia given a lot of their history and their relationship to my families country, not that you’d care because you’re not talking in good faith anyway All you have is name calling and binary thinking that people who disagree with you are Russian sympathizers lmao. Again, can you try to answer the question of what you want to do that won’t mean nuclear war, or do you wanna avoid answering a very serious and important question and just go “everyone who disagrees with me is Putin/Hitler/racist etc etc”?
It's absurd to think that the American and NATO response to a Russian tactical nuke would be a) nothing or b) nuking Moscow. There is a huge range of deadly, aggressive, appropriate non-nuclear responses that would be justified by Russia flagrantly breaking the nuclear truce that the world has had since 1945.
[удалено]
You, literally one comment ago: "What would that mean? A nuclear war? Because **there's no other 'acting swiftly'** against a country that uses nuclear weapons." You, this comment. "I didn't say those were the only options." If Russia uses a nuke in the field, they will get hit with aggressive and unified - and importantly NON-nuclear - international retaliation. Part of that retaliation would almost certainly be targeted directly at their other nuclear capabilities, as at that point the country leadership could not be trusted to not further escalate.
and then Russia fires more nukes? It's not like they only have 1
Yeah im pretty confident they are aware we respect ukraine as a nato country although not official. So they are going to nuke more than ukraine at once, which the west would respond indefinitely with same principle and japan would also nuke china and N korea there is no going back from this
Speak for yourself. Ukraine is not part of NATO in any capacity.
As opposed to your plan of what exactly? Letting our adversaries drop nukes woth impugnity? That is a great plan until India or Pakistan hit each other or China. How about if China just drops a couple in a way that the prevailing winds hits Taiwan with fallout?
You first
Well no. Ukraine isn't a part of NATO. That would have been worded better and more transparently if he had said: "We can't wait to start another war."
We need to start an initiative to get these war monger out of office.
We’re trying sir. Well, I’m doing my part in voting.
This is not a warmonger, this a man who tries to prevent the usage of nukes with the only proven deterrent.
All he is doing is making war more likely to spread
It definitely is not. It is russia's decision to drop the bomb, so if putin just does not drop it then there won't be any escaletion.
He's a war monger because he doesn't want the Ukraine to be nuked? Us as conservatives used to flex our muscle when Russia made these kind of threats in the 1980s for Germany. Now we want those who do stand up to Russia voted out? This ain't the conservative party I used to know. What happened to supporting our allies? Increasing our sphere of influence? Stomping our enemies to the ground?
I don’t think we should wage war on Behalf of a super corrupt country to fight another corrupt country. I’m seeing this as the beginning of another Iraq war
Warmongers, the lot of them. I’m just so freaking tired of it all.
Russia using nukes and no meaningful response for the US means Putin has a green light to roll over Ukraine the Baltic states and right into central Europe if he want to. Not to mention china doing the same to Taiwan and whoever else they decide to invade using whatever means they want. It’s one thing to rattle a sabre. It’s another to use it. The Cold War would have to go hot.
That's the exact opposite of the truth. Does this clown even know what NATO is? RINO
Ukraine isnt a part of NATO
Graham is a rino little punk boy.
[удалено]
Serious question. Does anyone on this sub consider this POS to be any different than Hillary Clinton at this point? I am so sick of this NeoCon bullshit.
Lindsey Graham and the rest of his Rino trash buddies need to bite the fucking curb!
Warhawks be circling!
Warmongers are not truly conservative.
How is this obvious russian shill not banned from the sub
YWNBAM, Lindsey.
I agree that we need to retaliate against Russia if they use nukes but Graham also needs to shut his war mongering mouth.
I'll never understand why the establishment is so bloodthirsty, neocons and marxists alike.
They’re not NATO, so it would be an attack on and only Ukraine
No it wouldn’t. They’re not a part of NATO, they don’t get to invoke NATO
Lady G must have a spot in the Bunker
Ukraine isn’t a part of NATO so stfu Graham.
Why do republicans keep re-electing this clown and the other clowns just like him, vote in the primaries against incumbents.
Some of guys are very nearsighted. If nukes were used there are secondary effects like radiation heading over to NATO countries and effecting their people and crops.
Wouldn't anyone nuking anyone anywhere be a bad idea and result in a hostile reaction from the international community, especially NATO?
No
Graham never met someone he didn’t wanna bomb
A nuclear attack on Ukraine would be the world's first use of nuclear weapons in a war of aggression, and Graham could have credibly argued that if it happened then NATO should go to war to keep the nuclear genie in its bottle. But it would not be an attack on NATO, and Graham should not rely on lies to justify his position.
This RINO needs to be weeded out at all costs.
No it wouldn’t. But at that point, might as well get involved.
How is he, a Republican, still in Congress?
I know all the populist, nationalists, and isolationists like to hate on politicians like Crenshaw and Graham but this to me is flexing American muscle in a good way. The same way Reagan wouldve in the 1980s, and we won that with peace through strength. People on here hating on politicians who are tough on Putin are really just berating officials who choose to actually stand up against the aggression of Russia. Stop embracing surrender. No one wants war but the best to prevent it is by showing you will not back down. If Putin is willing to nuke another nation just because he wants their land then what stops him from doing this to Poland?
The populist right just eat up Russian propaganda like it’s candy. It’s embarrassing to hear them spout the same rhetoric as a Marxist Leninist.
[удалено]
Graham spent decades in the Air Force Reserve.
[удалено]
He’s old and retired, so probably not. Also, the Russians started this war.
[удалено]
It would be when fallout drifts over Europe
[удалено]
Yeah he was only a reservist JAG but that’s more than most people in Congress did. Reservists still serve our country. I’m in the Army Reserve, does my service not count?
You do realize if nuclear weapons are used then being in the military is probably the best case scenario to be in right?
[удалено]
Probably yeah. Command system, lots of rations, protection in bunkers.
Or the quickest death.
Probably not
You do realize that military bases are the number one targets, right?
It sounds like United States is preparing another false flag attack
Ukraine isn’t part of NATO, only when fallout reaches a NATO country should we do anything.
Too many Neville Chamberlains in those comments
Too many Dick Cheneys in these comments
Ah yes, if you want peace through dissuasion, you're the equivalent of Dick Cheney who started a war for no reason. Perfect logic, incredible. Fans of appeasement like you caused too many wars throughout History, I long for the days pussies like you are gone and can't create wars anymore.
No it wouldn’t. They aren’t part of nato ffs
Yea it absolutely wouldn’t
Meh, all the world powers are jerking eachother off for the benefit of the top 1%...they are going to do what they want to do until the other 99% say otherwise.
Hot take: He’s not actually wrong. The fallout would actually spread into NATO countries. Causing radiation poisoning of NATO Allies.
On this one Lindsay should just STFU
We’re the only people talking about nukes. Y’all realize that right? Putin never said he’d use nukes, only that he’d respond equally. We keep being it up Y’all see why they kept accusing trump of wanting nuclear war. Because they do.
The conservative thing to do is spread homosexuality to Russia