Should the EU/NATO use direct military action to help defend Ukraine?
- Thread starter shambler
- Start date
It does appear that it took more than two decades for the MoD to admit that there were nuclear weapons with the taskforce and for my part i had not heard of this until this very day.Kebabking says people have been writing about this for forty years but is it clear even now whether there were nukes aboard the Sheffield which,in the event that there were,are presumably still there.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Only responsible owners should be allowed nukes. The UK is a responsible owner. Therefore, any suggestion that they took nukes into a war zone by mistake is a scurrilous lie. Whatever the facts.
maomao
普費斯
Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina'
Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina’s deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead against Buenos Aires, according to a book.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
At the time there were certainly rumours flying around that Thatcher might go nuclear and there were also certainly elderly Nazis living a comfortable retirement in Buenos Aires. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the latter, given that they themselves had participated in the industrialised mass murder of the innocent, might consider the former capable of taking such action. Everything else in my post wasfact rather than conjecture.
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
This continuing policy of containing the bloodshed to Ukraine is showing most of Europe up
The legalities of constraints on NATO intervention is a smokescreen, we've had coalitions go into sovereign states a few times now, you simply stop using the the word NATO
The we're alright Jack thing AND of course FFS Nuke!!!s, is fine but we should come clean about it and stop pretending NATO countries can only act under NATO
The legalities of constraints on NATO intervention is a smokescreen, we've had coalitions go into sovereign states a few times now, you simply stop using the the word NATO
The we're alright Jack thing AND of course FFS Nuke!!!s, is fine but we should come clean about it and stop pretending NATO countries can only act under NATO
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Russia is threatening any country that gets directly involved with nukes, it wouldn't matter if it was done under the NATO banner or not, and that's clearly the reason why we are where we are, and I don't see anyone pretending otherwise.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Still think other countries could send in troops in a non-combat role, helping with stuff like mine clearance and rebuilding infrastructure. Hard for Russia to get pissy about something like that. It would free up Ukrainian troops to go to the front, and may cause some reluctance for Russia to attack the areas these foreign troops would be operating in, lest there be a response. Take some air defences with them to protect the mission.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
It is for politicians desperate for public approval. Have to be seen to be doing something. Plus some evidence of it becoming a pissing contest between states, with everyone tutting at the Germans for lagging behind (although Germany has actually sent quite a bit of kit, just maybe with a bit less fanfare in case the bad man turns their heating off)
I’d agree that the element of surprise would be better, also might mean a bit less of this stuff gets blown up in depots in Western Ukraine before it even gets to the front. Russian spies know when a delivery is coming and it’s easy for them to follow the tank-shaped object on the back of a lorry to see where it is going.
Last edited:
Similar threads
