yet nothing said it plans to add more nukes, place nukes closer to any countries, nor highly recommends. all your own words.

in fact, the page says:



there's fewer nukes than before. so how?

The core component to make an ICE car to drive is what?

Fuel? Engine? Wheels?

If you take out one of the core components, does the ICE car work?

Then all 3 are highly recommended to make the ICE car work right?

So the core components translate to highly recommended.

And now ICE cars are fewer with EVs in the market.

Everything also needs to be spoonfed, unbelievable.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:04 PM

so youre just going to gloss over the 90% reduction in nukes eh?

I already answered the highly recommended part, now you are trying to shift the goal post again.

Core components, but now many new weapons have been invented, see Ukraine has been the battleground to test out all these new weapons and clear out old stockpile by NATO.

But weird thing is, Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet.

ukraine must now felt like a reused condom

Nope, you literally had to make up a definition on a page that doesnt match your argument, then ignoring the fact that the rest of the page doesnt match your 'definition'. How is it 'highly recommended' but you reduce yhe number of nukes?

Using your example of a car, an engine is a core component of a car but it doesnt mean that it becomes "highly recommended" to slap on six more engines on your car. That is a retarded argument.

So assuming youre not driving around a car with 6 engines and 17 wheels, i think a normal person wouldnt equate 'core component' with 'highly recommended'.

Lol, you just answered it yourself with your own statement above.

You don't need many nukes as a deterrence, nevertheless it is highly recommended to have it, it is NATO's core component for defense and deterrence.

Only need 1 engine as a core component to make a car drive, you don't need too many.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:32 PM

precisely - so how do point at a document that says that nukes are a 'core component' that "you dont need too many", and say that this document says that they're going to put more nukes?

Youre saying nato "highly recommends" nukes, but there are at the same time 90% fewer nukes than when nato started, theres only very few countries that host them (none of them anywhere near russia), and theres no plans to install any new bases for nukes, including in countries that are already nato members.

Does that sound right?

This post has been edited by empyreal: Dec 2 2025, 02:56 PM

Then it is NATO's own fault, for putting a conflicting statement on their own official website.

Nevertheless it is a core component for defense and deterrence, logically it is.

Actually it's your own fault for low comprehension in English.

> "my logic doesnt make sense, so it must be other people's fault."

Russia attack Ukraine in accordance to UN resolution?
NATO military intervention in Libya is in accordance with
UN resolution.
So who the terrorist here?
How convenient of you to leave facts out to spin half truths.

Qatar, Jordan and UAE joined NATO in Libya military intervention in 2011.
So how? According to your logic they are terrorist also?

Guess who abstained in passing the 2011 UN resolution?

Ukraine masih tak mahu wake up....
Inb4, they are not allowed to wake up

Mate, core component for defense & deterence =/= we are going to put nukes in Ukraine.

There is nothing conflicting about "nukes beings core component for defense & deterence" and "no nukes in Ukraine".

The nukes can still be in France, Germany and it is still "core component for defense & deterence"

You yourself have low comprehension, already stated in the first paragraph nuclear is a core component for defense and deterrence.

Trying hard to refute NATO's own admissions, they have a nuclear sharing program.

NATO itself admitted in the first paragraph on their page that it is a core component for defense and deterrence.

That's why America doesn't dare to invade North Korea, they are trying to use South Korea as a proxy war.

Remember the South Korean president went crazy and blocked the Parliament session?

They didn't drop bombs on Libya with depleted uranium bombs, also they provided humanitarian assistance immediately.

They work under the banner of the U.N, mostly with humanitarian assistance.

That's why Libyan casualties don't reach millions like in Iraq.

Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet, and look at all the "assistance" they are getting.

It is a NATO core component for defense and deterrence for a reason.

This post has been edited by smsid: Yesterday, 08:47 AM

Qatar did provided fighter jets and attacked targets in Libya.
Jordan and UAE provided fighter jets and other military assets also.

So according to your logic they are terrorist.
So now working under UN banner is ok with you now?
yet you say NATO terrorist when work under UN banner.

So how?
Or you want to continue spin half truth when it does not fit your narrative and kantoi as usual?

This post has been edited by COOLPINK: Yesterday, 09:43 AM

Lets recap the convo:

> "nato wants to put nukes on russia's border. This nato page says so."
> does it actually say so?
> "no, but it says 'highly recommends'."
> does it actually say 'highly recommends'?
> "no, but it says 'core component'."
> does core component mean nato will add more nukes?
> "no, the page says theres 90% fewer nukes since the cold war."
> does core component mean nato will build more nuke bases?
> "no, none of nato's new members since the end of the cold war host nukes."
> does the page say anything about putting nukes in ukraine?
> "no."
> so what does the page have to do with your argument?
> "err... its nato's fault that the page i linked doesnt support my argument."

This post has been edited by empyreal: Yesterday, 11:31 AM

purposely leave a gap for Ukraine army to escape, but that escape route high chances is a trap by Russian, they can easily spot massive retreat and bombard them. Look like Russia is trying to eliminate Ukraine army as many as possible, leaving them low amount of young men to strike back in this 1-2 decades.

Ukraine has nothing left to milk for US, they would rather faster wrap up and end the war. US cannot guarantee supply of weapon since China has prohibit the rare earth export to US military industry.

This post has been edited by yhtan: Yesterday, 11:43 AM

Doesn't indicate anything about getting nukes.

Where is your source that Qatar and UAE provided their military asset to bomb Libya?

It is NATO's core components for defense and deterrence, as stated on first paragraph, it is clear cut, why you people still think that it is not impossible for Ukraine to apply for it is beneath me.

Even when Ukraine is not part of NATO, you can clearly see how much weapons and "assistance" being funnel to Ukraine with ease since day one.



https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/