This is ludicrous hyperbole. Germany had already surrendered in May 1945; the USSR declared war on Japan shortly thereafter. Japan's Pacific holdings had been vastly reduced, and Allied air raids on Japan had caused immense damage. However, ground campaigns to take Japanese territory at Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been done at the cost of immense casualties on both sides; the use of the atomic bomb had been considered tactically as a means of shocking Japan into defeat without the need for more ground campaigns on the Japanese mainland.
But America was not at an "existential threat" from Japan by the time the atomic bombs were dropped.
Who are we to scold them for building nukes in their own existential war, especially since we betrayed them and they never woulda been invaded if they had kept those nukes?
Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons was the price they paid to be internationally recognized as a sovereign nation following the dissolution of the USSR. This has been explained to you before.
So it behooves us to get involved and keep it conventional rather than push the Ukes into a nuke corner.
Notwithstanding that you're mixing apples and oranges (nuclear non-proliferation versus violations of sovereign borders in the course of a war between nations): if nuclear non-proliferation is your biggest concern, then you should be the one most opposed to the West using Ukraine as their proxy for fighting Russia.
But America was not at an “existential threat” from Japan by the time the atomic bombs were dropped.
***They were BUILT during that existential threat time. I said explicitly and you even quoted: Who are we to scold them for building nukes in their own existential war
Kevmo: especially since we betrayed them and they never woulda been invaded if they had kept those nukes?
US7troll: Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons was the price they paid to be internationally recognized as a sovereign nation following the dissolution of the USSR.
***See how you blithely — nay, trollfully — just go over that point that they never woulda been invaded if they had those nukes? That’s simply a troll maneuver, one of the reasons you are being treated as a troll.
This has been explained to you before.
***I have explained things to you before, and yet you continue to act as a troll.
Kevmo: So it behooves us to get involved and keep it conventional rather than push the Ukes into a nuke corner.
US7troll: Notwithstanding
***That’s like the 3rd time you’ve used that word. You aint using it correctly. You’re trying to appear smart but it just makes ya look stupid.
that you’re mixing apples and oranges (nuclear non-proliferation versus violations of sovereign borders in the course of a war between nations):
***Those apples and oranges were mixed in the Budapest Accession to the United Nations Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty that the USA signed, Ukraine signed, and Russia signed. Gigantic duhh factor to this.
if nuclear non-proliferation is your biggest concern, then you should be the one most opposed to the West using Ukraine as their proxy for fighting Russia.
***Russia INVADED Ukraine after they relinquished nukes and after oil & gas reserves were discovered there. It is in that very nonproliferation agreement that says all sides are to respect the borders and sovereignty of Ukraine. Invading is not respecting the borders. Pushing back the Russians to those borders IS respecting the borders as well as the spirit of the agreement, removing the temptation for the Ukes to build nukes. So yes, nuke nonproliferation is my biggest concern. What is your biggest concern, being found out that you uphold a priori and circular reasoning, eh troll?