The proposed resolution "views the use of any tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty."

Doesn't seem unreasonable. Any nuclear attack or disaster in Ukraine would affect neighboring countries.

[+] TomHardy@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Yeah shelling Nuclear power plants and using depleted uranium ammo is something only NATO clowns can do, when Russia is using something radioactive, we suddenly start to think about the neighbors!1!!1!

[–] zurma@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand if you are sarcastic? Literally a few months ago the Britbongs announced they sent depleted uranium ammo to Ukraine, known for causing increased cancer rates and birth defects in the regions they are used. Japan said they will donate trucks which were used during Fukushima and still are radioactive to Ukraine. Now, NATO suddenly cares about contaminates? LMAO this only proves Westerners see Ukrainians as subhumans just as Russians, they put them through stuff they would never accept on their soil.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

anything on 'the use of any tactical nuclear weapon' or 'the destruction of a nuclear facility', what with that being what the conversation is about and all

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

..., dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory...

This you left out on purpose?

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

yes, what with it not being one of the conditions for an "immediate response", and actually just being elaboration on the actual conditions

thats why it says "or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory"

as opposed to "or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, or dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory"

so sure, on purpose, that purpose being treating the text as if it says what it actually says

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

what? My point still stands NATO likes to sht but not to eat sht

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)