You must log in or register to comment.
Russia’s WMD can reach North America, that’s why.
there’s a difference between WMDs that work and rube goldberg war crime machines. why do you think all serious militaries ditched chemical weapons and go balls deep into PGMs? hint: it’s not for humanitarian reasons
True, but let’s not pretend that we actually found any substantial WMDs. We found 34 tons of mustard gas. At the time, the US had the most VX gas in the world.
every time VX gets mentioned i inevitably end up in a Wikipedia rabbit hole, it’s now been one and a half hours
It’s a collector’s item!
And in theory they have enough working ones that at least one is guaranteed to slip through defenses
If you assume all Russian subs and planes can be sunk / shot down before they release their payloads, there’s still over 3000 land based ICBM warheads. There is no terminal phase missile defense system. Majority of the land based warheads will reach terminal phase. The extrapolation that the events in Ukraine mean that nuclear exchange between the two biggest nuclear nations is somehow survivable is both dumb and dangerous.
Well… The species will probably survive, as will a plethora of other species on the planet.
The things that definitely won’t survive are modern society and it’s status quo.
Nobody wants a nuclear war. I think we can all agree that it would be bad for an uncountable number of reasons.
Nobody wants a nuclear war.
Just a small one perhaps?
Okay you and Nuke can have a small one, as a treat.
Go play out back, have fun.
They were in their Church Clothes! How could you let them go out in the mud?!
Eh, it will vaporise.
Nobody wants a nuclear war
👀
NUKE THE COMMIES
Ma’am this is a Wendy’s
And also is real, and numerous.
We invaded Iraq on the pretense that they were getting yellowcake from Nigerian suppliers, and US suppliers were in Nigeria trying to sell yellowcake to Saddam Hussein. He wasn’t interested.
We knew he wasn’t interested because Joseph Wilson, a US diplomat, was involved in the efforts to make the sale. Hussein saw which way the wind was blowing.
When George W. Bush started talking about invading Iraq (in speeches blending vitriol against Hussein and anger over 9/11) Wilson published a report about how Hussein totally wasn’t buying Yellowcake, which he knew about. And in response, the Bush administration burned Valerie Plame, who was Wilson’s wife and an actual CIA operative who was active and abroad.
She made it home safely, and could no longer work as a CIA operative. In the cold war, burning a spy for political reasons showed CIA you were careless, and deserved to receive a tape of ten hours of your loved one screaming as she was tortured to death. But those were different times, and presidents then had a few more scruples (and knew not to do that).
According to Al Franken, about 75% of ground troops during the Iraq war believed they were there as revenge for the 9/11 attacks, even though Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. A friend of mine in Virginia noted his teen daughter was taught in American History we were provoked to go into Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks and the International War on Terror. I was around in 2003 watching Republicans nation wide saying torture is AOK and waterboarding isn’t really torture (until they went to have a SERE guy waterboard them for size. They all thought it was pretty terrible and even maybe torturous). Still, it was pretty clear that the IWoT and Iraq were separate things, even though the White House liked to conflate the two in speeches. Hussein and Al-Qaeda did not get along.
I remember the US attacked Iraq because Hussein allegedly had WMDs. The US couldn’t find any. The US had strong intel beforehand there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was still recovering from the 1990-1991 gulf war.
I think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just wanted to kill and torture some Arabs for being too brown and because they couldn’t kill Saudis (like Osama Bin Laden, who figured largely in planning the 9/11 attacks). All the WMD nonsense was a deliberate lie.
They wanted to look like they were doing something in retaliation for 9/11.
As much as I think the Iraq situation was total bullshit, there’s a difference between just beginning to develop nuclear weapons, and having a massive stockpile of functional nuclear weapons.
And there’s a difference between having a nuke and being able to nuke NYC.
Why did you use this meme template and then make literally no reference to its conversation
OP right now
Absolutely, I’m going to throw myself on my sword any moment now.
I love it when people get big mad about IMPROPER USE OF MEMES, it’s almost as funny as people taking NCD seriously. Honestly I should make a few that are wrong on purpose just for the tears.
Why did you assume I’m the one who made the meme?
Say no more, we (french) didnt invade Irak cause they didnt had WMD, so we will invade Russia because they have WMD!
And somehow, for some reason, you will rename french fries as: “Oppression fries”.
*Tabarnack
This is not fair, Ukraine got to invade them, we should get to too!
It’s funny how the talk from Russia about using nukes if their international border was crossed vanished immediately after it was crossed. Hard to garner sympathy from the world about being invaded when you’re waving around a nuclear saber
I was just a kid in the lead up to Iraq and I could see through the bullshit with this argument. If they had wmd we wouldn’t invade.
Putting aside the inspectors at that time were calling BS on the Bush administration, let’s pretend the intelligence real and not a lie.
Technically, they were claiming that Iraq had the materials to make WMDs, but they did not have the ability to launch a strike on the US. Russia has been able to strike the US for decades.
I think there is a major difference between chemical weapons and bombs that can be used for terrorist attacks versus nuclear ICBMs. One thing is to invade a country that can use chlorine gas against our troops, but placing the existence of our country and possibly humanity on the line is another thing entirely. Iraq could have potentially used gas attacks against it’s population, allied populations and troops. However, Russia could nuke the hell out of NATO and cause a catastrophic worldwide famine for decades.
There’s a difference between WMDs that can reach the US, and ones that can only be deployed locally. Russia has the former (and a lot of them), hence no invasion.
Russia has a lot of warheads, some of them might even work.
chemical weapons are easily countered at funding level that US army has
In my mind, the main difference is that they thought Iraq was working on the technology, not that they had it. If it’s being developed but it’s not complete, the superpower can basically wrestle their way in and go “no you fucking don’t” like an older brother ripping your favorite snack from your hands.
Meanwhile, we know damned well Russia already has assembled WMDs, that are presently sitting on ICBM rockets, with navigation targets pointed at American cities, that can be armed and fired within minutes of the order being given.
The same way the USA does (just for… Non American targets).
The whole WMDs in Iraq thing was basically international bullying.
I know this is NCD but ability to make a dirty bomb or deploy WMDs on the battlefield or in strategic theater use is not at all the same thing as MAD. Iraq had no space program, no long range strategic bombers, no nothing of the sort. (They also didn’t have WMDs at that point in time though so…). The concern was that Iraq could use WMDs to harm its neighbors, its own populace, or to enable terrorist groups to use smuggled WMDs. Even the WMD tipped SCUDS Iraq used to have were no real threat to the US troops.
I didn’t really say that the fear was that they would launch WMDs at a specific target.
I made no comment about how they would be used by Iraq forces if they did have them.
I’m just saying.
I did, however, very clearly state that Russia is primed and ready to blow up America on a whim (or at least, try to… Honestly, I hope I never find out which it is). So preventing another country from developing nuclear technology is essentially playground bullying on an international level… I’m not trying to imply that they shouldn’t investigate when a country starts building possibly dangerous military technology. However, clear parallels can be drawn to playground games like “keep array”
WMD! Get yo WMD here! WMD!
Do bzzt we bzzt have bzzt a bzzt problem bzzt here? ding
I hear it’s the bomb
If planning to invade Russia, plan for winter. Theyll never see it coming.
You’ve fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this; never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! Aha ha ha ha…
Completely false. UN weapons inspectors were allowed in Iraq unconditionally from September 2022 right up until the US went to war in March 2023. They found no evidence that Iraq had any stockpiles of WMD. That kinda rained on Bush’s parade though, so his administration simply ignored those findings.
You mean 2002 and 2003, right?
Iraq unconditionally from September 2022 right up until the US went to war in March 2023
I’m not sure what war you’re talking about, but the Iraq War was long before that.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3326-weapons-of-mass-distraction-an-inspections-timeline/
February 1991 Kuwait freed as Gulf War ends. Iraq subject to weapons inspections and UN sanctions
August 1991 UN Security Council requires Iraq to disclose all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs
July 1992 UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) inspection team refused access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture
15 October 1994 UN orders Iraq to withdraw military units near Kuwait border
March 1996 UNSCOM teams denied access to five Iraqi sites
13 June 1996 Team denied access to military sites
November 1996 Iraq stops UNSCOM inspectors from taking missile components for analysis
February 1997 Iraq allows UNSCOM to remove missile components
21 June 1997 UN insists Iraq allow arms inspectors access to sites
29 October 1997 Iraq expels US members of UNSCOM inspection team
20 November 1997 US members of UNSCOM return to Iraq
13 January 1998 Iraq says UNSCOM team includes too many US and British members and accuses Scott Ritter of spying. The following week inspection teams are denied access to presidential sites.
February 1998 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan negotiates arms inspection deal with Saddam Hussein
5 August 1998 Iraq demands that UN lifts the oil embargo and reorganises UNSCOM
31 October 1998 Iraq refuses to cooperate with UNSCOM
November 1998 Inspections resume
16 December 1998 UNSCOM personnel withdrawn from Iraq
30 June 1999 Richard Butler ends his time as executive chairman of UNSCOM
17 December 1999 UN replaces UNSCOM with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Iraq rejects the resolution
1 March 2000 Hans Blix becomes executive chairman of UNMOVIC
November 2000 Iraq rejects new proposals for weapons inspections
3 May 2002 Talks between UNMOVIC and Iraqi officials
July 2002 Talks end without agreement on arms inspections
1 August 2002 Iraqi government invites Hans Blix for “technical talks” on disarmament issues
6 August 2002 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan writes to the Iraqi leadership, asking them to accept inspections in accordance with UN resolutions
12 September 2002 President Bush argues for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq. The US pushes for action, warning that it is willing to act independently of the UN 16 September 2002 Iraq agrees to unconditional return of UN inspection teams
8 November 2002 UN Security Council resolution requires Iraq to submit a full weapons declaration and to cooperate with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. It warns of “serious consequences” for material breaches of the resolution.
13 November 2002 Iraqi government accepts UN resolution
18 November 2002 Weapons inspectors return to Iraq
9 January 2003 Weapons inspectors report to UN Security Council that Iraq illegally acquired engines and other missile components, but they do not believe these were used to try to develop nuclear weapons
17 January 2003 Inspectors uncover chemical shells in Iraq. Further tests may reveal if the 11 empty warheads are a “material breach” of UN resolutions
27 January 2003 Hans Blix’ report criticises Iraq for not coming to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament demanded of it and not accounting for stockpiles of banned weapons
28 January 2003 Inspectors reveal prohibited Iraqi missile tests. Documents uncovered in Iraq show two types of missile were tested beyond the 150 km limit set by UN sanctions
5 February 2003 Communication intercepts, surveillance images and defector testimony show that Iraq is defying the UN, says the US Secretary of State
13 February 2003 An expert panel assembled by UN weapons inspectors confirms earlier suggestions that Iraqi missiles breach UN sanctions. Iraq insists the missiles are not designed to travel beyond the 150km limit
7 March 2003 Chief UN weapons inspector suggests a 29-point timetable taking “months” to settle whether Iraq is cooperating over disarmament
11 March 2003 A last-ditch effort to unite the UN Security Council centres on the technical details of weapons Iraq has yet to account for
17 March 2003 UN weapons inspectors told to leave Iraq. The US advice that inspectors should evacuate Baghdad is a clear sign that military action is imminent
