The Ukraine War

[Tamworthram]

10 hours ago, Ramarena said:

I call it an invasion.

Ukraine didn’t want this and only went into battle to defend themselves and their land/country.

I personally see war more as an escalation between two willing sides, or when others nations join the fight to defend or attack another.

This is very one sided, Ukraine will not be launching attacks or counter offensives into Russia, they are pretty much solely fortifying against invasion and repelling those invaders!

 

Oxford English definition of war: a situation in which two or more countries or groups of people fight against each other over a period of time.

We’re getting hung up a bit on semantics but I reckon this meets pretty much every definition of a war. It may have been triggered by the Russian invasion but it is no doubt a conflict between the nations armies of Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine may not be “a willing side” but I suspect this is often the case when an aggressor attacks, whether provoked or not, another nation or group of people.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

It could be a fake but given that it made front page of the Times today, i doubt it.

That picture of a pregnant woman at the hospital in Mariupol being carried on a stretcher amongst the devastation says it all really.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by EtoileSportiveDeDerby

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

Poor Chelski fans, never mind. Does that mean Boris owns Chelski? ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60690362

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by EtoileSportiveDeDerby

[Day]

10 hours ago, Alpha said:

No, not "whataboutism" 

Nobody here is justifying the invasion. You've said that 4 times now and it's still not true. 

Putin has given reasons for invading Ukraine. I've not seen anybody agree that his reasons are good enough. For the 4th time. 

However, we have discussed IF his concerns actually have something behind them. And that is debatable. That doesn't mean if you recognise some of his concerns that you support his reaction. It doesn't. I know you'd like to pretend it does so you can come for a 5th time suggesting people are supporting his war. But it doesn't. 

Nato expansion is real. Proxy wars are real. And those are in discussion. 

On the Western side you have America that has 750 military bases in 80 countries. It has been in conflict for 91% of its existence and has been directly involved in almost 400 military conflicts. This threat, this expansion, this world power is entirely relevant to Putin's claims. It's not "whataboutism". It's relevant discussion to the thread. Otherwise the thread is nothing more than news updates you can get from BBC. 

You're not into debating other perspectives? Well it's a good job the people in power are because otherwise we'll be in WW3. There needs to be an understanding. 

When is a good time to mention the thousands upon thousands of civilians killed by America? When is a good time to bring up these war crimes? Never? Feck the Middle East? Feck the Palestinians humanitarian aid as USA sends billions to Israel? No, I'm sure you don't think like that. 

So, if you've witnessed the utter carnage brought upon people by American direct and indirect military conflicts then now, while people are in touch with the human cost of war, would be a good time to mention the Napalm strikes, Agent Orange, Atomic bombs, hospitals, schools, community centers bombed, the capture and torture of the likes of Abu Zubaydah, the drone strikes that kill only civilians.

Because we all agree this war in Ukraine is wrong. So there's little point to keep patting each other on the back in agreement. 

But does Putin raise some valid concerns? That is something we can discuss. And are doing until someone comes along pretending that if you say "yes" then you're loving Ukrainian kids being bombed. 

What do we do with our warmonger? We call him "sir"

100% if you felt double standards were being applied to you, you would question it. That's not whataboutism. That's understanding the rules we're playing by. 

So when Putin talks about liberating the Donbass republics who voted for independence and he talks about activity such as that by Azov Battallion... we call that ******** excuses. But when America goes to war in Vietnam then it's to fight for democracy and freedom. Nothing to do with fear of communist domino effect America feared and the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident. 

America and Russia have opposed each other since the Dinosaurs. They oppose each other in conflicts all across the globe over the decades. They're enemies. It's surely all relevant? The Cuban Missile Crisis is relevant. You say whataboutism... yes, West and East have been playing this game forever. It's all relevant. 

Russia can not allow enemies to infiltrate Ukraine any more than America can allow it in Cuba or Vietnam. 

And I still think invading Ukraine was insane. But we will all understand WHY he did it. Because Ukraine will be neutral, it won't be Nato, DPR and LPR will be annexed/become Russia. Crimea too. It will be controversial. But that's the why. 

Is it Russia's Vietnam? I dunno. I'm not smart enough to answer 

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this topic, the only thing I would disagree with you on is the timing of when to discuss previous innocent victims of war.

A school or hospital being bombed in Kabul, Palestine is no different to one in Kyiv, targeted or accidental, it’s horrific and should never happen and I’m sure nobody would disagree with that.

As the owner of this forum I have to acknowledge my role in preventing discussions such as these at the time as I introduced a ban on political discussions, the forum has developed far beyond the vision I had and wasn’t prepared enough to moderate effectively. Poor old Gboro was left to handle it on his own as some of the moderators were tired of the arguments that take place, and still are.

The existence of this topic is from a vote that took place in the moderators room, a vote that was very close I should add.

You will be well aware that prior to this war we removed your Palestine profile picture, not as I support the actions of Israel, it was done under the rules at the time, rules which are still in place now and need reviewing with the moderating team to make an exception for wars and other conflicts that are taking place globally.

Celtic were punished for the fans show of support for Palestine, whilst now we have players walking out draped in Ukraine flags, the hypocrisy is there for all to see, why? I don’t know, but I do know that as the owner of this forum I will as I say review the rules with the moderation team to allow topics where the situation in Palestine can be discussed, even if it means adding to the moderation team people with an interest those discussions.

The here and now of this topic, when a maternity hospital in Ukraine is bombed, it’s a development in a current war where the ripples have already reached our shores with the economic sanctions in place. 

It’s a development that may push NATO a step closer to taking military action, which in turn increases the threat of this turning into a nuclear war, that would be the natural path of this discussion rather than simple Putin is bad back patting.

It’s a threat that saw a demand for this topic to be allowed and this is why you are seeing the accusations of whataboutery.

Leave it with me and I will work on allowing you separate topics to discuss Palestine and other conflicts, whilst allowing those that are here to discuss the situation in Ukraine rather than the previous actions of America.

By the way, you will definitely be refused that Visa if anyone from the offices over there read this topic! 

[Day]

 

[Day]

Even more, this is a huge sanction for Chelsea as a football club. 

 

[Leeds Ram]

10 hours ago, Alpha said:

The list I gave was a list of military conflicts USA has directly been involved in since WW2. I said some of them have fair reasons directly underneath the list. Some, like Iraq, do not. 

I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Never have. I do however understand why Putin sees threats to Russian security. That's doesn't justify a war. Just like Blair and Bush had no justification for the Iraq war. 

His disregard for civilian life is sickening. But you're choosing to say he's purposely targeting hospitals. I'm not sure if he is, but for arguments sake I'll go with it. 

But then you're saying that's different from American weapons gone awry. From accidental civilian deaths

I agree. 100%

But I don't think you can call civilian deaths accidental if they're targeted strikes at a hospital, believed without proof, that Taliban fighters are being treated there along with children and civilians. That's not an accident. That's collateral damage. And they acted on that without proof and killed only civilians. 

The same with the aid worker. They had bad intel. They acted on bad Intel. And again, collateral damage. 

America is absolutely no stranger to war crimes. You can find any number of them and the huge criticism internationally at America's attempt to cover them up.

So yes, I accept weapons gone awry is unfortunate. But there are hundreds of instances made public by the New York Times that shows an absolute blatant disregard for civilians in it's military strikes

It's comparable because we aren't talking about accidental deaths. 

As for the whataboutism. I addressed into my response to Eddie.

I do understand the "whataboutism" when it comes to what happens during war. We are going off topic on that and bringing up a hospital in Kabul after todays tragedy is insensitive. The point I made and the only point I wished to make was that "this is war" and I hope we hold our own leaders up to such scrutiny. 

Because as a pro Palestinian supporter and with a general interest in the Middle East conflicts I've seen all these tragedies/conflicts unfold without international condemnation on anything like this level. So, I admit there's a part of me that is "well what about when..." 

But our world doesn't really stop to talk about any of this. So while Putin is pointing the finger at American aggression in the world then I felt that it is worth bringing it up.

Obviously he's doing it to justify his war. That's the problem 

I just feel like we're going around in circles tbh. You tried to pin blame on those conflicts on the US and I simply pointed out numerous instances where the US were not the instigator but a respondent. I'm not sure why you're doubting that he's deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure when it's textbook for Russian military operations to do so. He's been doing it for years in Syria (as any reliable source would tell you) and he's not been shy in Chechnya about using civilian targets but now we're not sure if it's deliberate or not....

Your definition of collateral damage does not match what I've read it to be in numerous sources. I have read countless times that collateral damage occurs when there is a loss of life accompanying a legitimate military target.  You couldn't have a 'collateral damage' assessment for a non-military target for instance because that'd defeat the purpose. There has been a lot of criticism of the term 'collateral damage' and the US's willingness to accept collateral damage for a legitimate military target. But that's different from collateral damage being a terror tactic used to deliberately target non-military targets and civilians.  

Again, to my mind you're conflating very different things going on. There are distinctions between operations that have bad intel, a legitimate military target that has collateral damage and bombing hospitals and schools as a tactic of a terror campaign. There is a distinction morally and there is a distinction legally between those things. Accepting that civilians may die in a conflict or an operation as collateral damage is very different from deliberately targeting and murdering pregnant women and children. I really cannot put it any simpler than that. 

It's not surprising there is more of a fuss of the fight for Ukraine than for instance the Lebanese civil war or a low level conflict like Palestine (I call it a low level conflict as it doesn't reach the criteria in casualties to be called an intra state war). It's closer to home, it violates norms that we're not used to and it intrinsically feels more threatening. I'd be surprised if it didn't command more attention. Similarly, you'll see more of a fuss about Palestine in the Middle East than you will about Ukraine or some other random war a long way away for the same reasons. 

There really are no threats to Russian security and Putin's claims necessarily are dictating what actions a sovereign democratic nation can or cannot do. There are a few times when nations do cede their sovereignty as internationally agreed (genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing) wanting to join a collective defensive security arrangement is not one of them. The idea that Ukraine, Poland, Romania, the Baltics, or Hungary pose a security threat to Russia is absolutely ludicrous. Anyone even the tiniest bit familiar with IR or general history would understand why those countries might want to be part of a protective defensive security arrangement. But again, I've said all this before. 

I don't think I'll respond anymore as I said in the first paragraph we're just going round in circles repeating one another. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Leeds Ram]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

I think you are letting the US off lightly.  Didn't they deliberately bomb Al Jazeera in Kabul, as it continued to report on the American bombing campaign? A fairly obvious war-crime.  Also their practice of 'signature drone strikes', thousands of which has been carried out for more than a decade is morally questionable to say the least. They quite often don't even know the identity of the targets....they are just.rolling the dice and hoping the target are terrorists. That's hard to justify. 

Again, none of which exonerates Putin, whose bombing campaign in Syria was ruthless and despicable and whose actions in Ukraine are utterly indefensible in my view.  What I don't understand is why bomb hospitals in Ukraine?  In Syria, the sad fact is he felt he could do that with impunity...he wasn't trying to unify Russia and Syria he was merely trying to help out an important ally in Assad.  In Ukraine, he talks about Russians and Ukrainians being one nation, somewhat deluded I know but that appears to be his genuine opinion.  How on Earth does he think bombing hospitals or civilians in general, whether deliberately or as a result of indiscriminate bombing, is going to 'win hearts and minds' in Ukraine?  It doesn't add up. 

 

I've never heard of them bombing an air station in Kabul. It would have been a surprise since in 2001 the Taliban weren't exactly a fan of music or televisions but I could be wrong on that score.  Maybe you're confusing it with the alleged plot to bomb the station in 2005 at its HQ in Qatar for their coverage? I'm pretty sure the signature drone strikes at least in Obama's time required a direct sign off from the President before it was a go. I've honestly not seen the intelligence as to whether they were a throw of the dice hoping they find the people they want or were random. I've always thought and heard that they weren't random but the critique were the levels of collateral damage and the amount of intel used before it was signed off. In addition, executive signed off drone strikes are constitutionally iffy for many people. 

He did it in Syria to invoke terror and fear and my guess is he's doing that again. Ukraine and Ukrainians aren't backing down so what he's doing is trying to invoke terror and fear hoping that will help make them crumble and desist. 

[Highgate]

11 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I've never heard of them bombing an air station in Kabul. It would have been a surprise since in 2001 the Taliban weren't exactly a fan of music or televisions but I could be wrong on that score.  Maybe you're confusing it with the alleged plot to bomb the station in 2005 at its HQ in Qatar for their coverage? I'm pretty sure the signature drone strikes at least in Obama's time required a direct sign off from the President before it was a go. I've honestly not seen the intelligence as to whether they were a throw of the dice hoping they find the people they want or were random. I've always thought and heard that they weren't random but the critique were the levels of collateral damage and the amount of intel used before it was signed off. In addition, executive signed off drone strikes are constitutionally iffy for many people. 

He did it in Syria to invoke terror and fear and my guess is he's doing that again. Ukraine and Ukrainians aren't backing down so what he's doing is trying to invoke terror and fear hoping that will help make them crumble and desist. 

Al Jazeera offices were hit in Kabul on November 13, 2001 and in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, both times by US missiles.  I believe the CIA was authorized to carry out drone strikes on it's own during the early part of Obama's presidency.  But Obama himself certainly embraced the drone war...even though the identity of those killed must have been guesswork to a large extent.  The US also had a strange way of cataloging casualties. Any male of military age in the vicinity of the strike was deemed a 'combatant'.  I think I should leave the discussion of the US's past foreign policy though...this thread is about Ukraine....and I hadn't even got to the 270 million cluster bombs  dropped on Laos during the Vietnam War! 75,000,000 of which remain unexploded and deadly...just in case anyone is thinking of a holiday to Laos!

Ok, bad to Putin and Ukraine.  You may well be right, he could indeed be doing it deliberately....I share your disdain for the man and certainly think him capable of such an evil strategy.  To be honest I can't work out Putin's strategy....he says he wants to reunify Ukraine and Russia, that they are one people (in his own head), and yet the invasion itself and the way Russia is carrying it out will drive a wedge between the 2 countries that will last for generations. 

[Ramarena]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Oxford English definition of war: a situation in which two or more countries or groups of people fight against each other over a period of time.

We’re getting hung up a bit on semantics but I reckon this meets pretty much every definition of a war. It may have been triggered by the Russian invasion but it is no doubt a conflict between the nations armies of Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine may not be “a willing side” but I suspect this is often the case when an aggressor attacks, whether provoked or not, another nation or group of people.

Yes it is semantics, I feel the term “invasion” or the term “the Russian invasion of Ukraine” helps battle the huge online disinformation that surrounds the topic.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, David said:

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this topic, the only thing I would disagree with you on is the timing of when to discuss previous innocent victims of war.

A school or hospital being bombed in Kabul, Palestine is no different to one in Kyiv, targeted or accidental, it’s horrific and should never happen and I’m sure nobody would disagree with that.

As the owner of this forum I have to acknowledge my role in preventing discussions such as these at the time as I introduced a ban on political discussions, the forum has developed far beyond the vision I had and wasn’t prepared enough to moderate effectively. Poor old Gboro was left to handle it on his own as some of the moderators were tired of the arguments that take place, and still are.

The existence of this topic is from a vote that took place in the moderators room, a vote that was very close I should add.

You will be well aware that prior to this war we removed your Palestine profile picture, not as I support the actions of Israel, it was done under the rules at the time, rules which are still in place now and need reviewing with the moderating team to make an exception for wars and other conflicts that are taking place globally.

Celtic were punished for the fans show of support for Palestine, whilst now we have players walking out draped in Ukraine flags, the hypocrisy is there for all to see, why? I don’t know, but I do know that as the owner of this forum I will as I say review the rules with the moderation team to allow topics where the situation in Palestine can be discussed, even if it means adding to the moderation team people with an interest those discussions.

The here and now of this topic, when a maternity hospital in Ukraine is bombed, it’s a development in a current war where the ripples have already reached our shores with the economic sanctions in place. 

It’s a development that may push NATO a step closer to taking military action, which in turn increases the threat of this turning into a nuclear war, that would be the natural path of this discussion rather than simple Putin is bad back patting.

It’s a threat that saw a demand for this topic to be allowed and this is why you are seeing the accusations of whataboutery.

Leave it with me and I will work on allowing you separate topics to discuss Palestine and other conflicts, whilst allowing those that are here to discuss the situation in Ukraine rather than the previous actions of America.

By the way, you will definitely be refused that Visa if anyone from the offices over there read this topic! 

I apologise if i have come across insensitive. 

And I agree I overstepped the mark. 

Obviously it curls my stomach seeing what's happening in Ukraine and I shouldn't be using this to shine the light on America/West/Nato conflicts elsewhere at different times. It never seems the right time to talk about it anywhere. Not to grab the attention of enough people. But yeah, now isn't that time and I'll stop. 

 

[Leeds Ram]

21 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Al Jazeera offices were hit in Kabul on November 13, 2001, and in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, by US missiles.  I believe the CIA was authorised to carry out drone strikes on its own during the early part of Obama's presidency.  But Obama himself certainly embraced the drone war...even though the identity of those killed must have been guesswork to a large extent.  The US also had a strange way of cataloguing casualties. Any male of military age in the vicinity of the strike was deemed a 'combatant'.  I should leave the discussion of the US's past foreign policy, though...this thread is about Ukraine....and I hadn't even got to the 270 million cluster bombs dropped on Laos during the Vietnam War! Seventy-five million remain unexploded and deadly...just in case anyone is thinking of a holiday to Laos!

Ok, harmful to Putin and Ukraine.  You may well be right; he could indeed be doing it deliberately...I share your disdain for the man and certainly think him capable of such an evil strategy.  To be honest, I can't work out Putin's plan....he says he wants to reunify Ukraine and Russia, that they are one people (in his head). Yet, the invasion itself and how Russia is carrying it out will drive a wedge between the two countries that will last for generations. 

Could you send me a link for the first claim as I've not found anything on that? Not doubting you though. I believe it was to a certain extent but Obama certainly wanted to grant executive authorisation for a large part of his presidency. They were authorised via kill lists which meant the targets were not guesswork but rather high precision targets from my understanding. But yeah the way of cataloguing casualties was dubious you are correct and there has been a criticism made of this policy. 

If I had to think about it Putin is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He wants to unify the countries and has done so under the guise of claiming to be 'threatened', 'liberating Ukrainians' and making Ukraine once again a part of Russia due to its historic links. Some of the reasoning is not so different from the west's claims in many a conflict (there is a decent but accessible book called 'the light that failed' and this can be supplemented by 'The great delusion' that explores these kinds of themes of how our rhetoric can be used against us to make our adversaries actions seem superficially the same).  But he's found an unwilling, well-armed adversary that is being supported by an international coalition. My best guess is he's gone into full 'war mode' and decided that he can't risk a defeat and he's taking what he said he'll take. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Highgate]

Just noticed @David post.  Will try to keep this on topic from now on too.  

[Highgate]

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Could you send me a link for the first claim as I've not found anything on that? Not doubting you though. I believe it was to a certain extent but Obama certainly wanted to grant executive authorisation for a large part of his presidency. They were authorised via kill lists which meant the targets were not guesswork but rather high precision targets from my understanding. But yeah the way of cataloguing casualties was dubious you are correct and there has been a criticism made of this policy. 

If I had to think about it Putin is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He wants to unify the countries and has done so under the guise of claiming to be 'threatened', 'liberating Ukrainians' and making Ukraine once again a part of Russia due to its historic links. Some of the reasoning is not so different from the west's claims in many a conflict (there is a decent but accessible book called 'the light that failed' and this can be supplemented by 'The great delusion' that explores these kinds of themes).  But he's found an unwilling, well-armed adversary that is being supported by an international coalition. My best guess is he's gone into full 'war mode' and decided that he can't risk a defeat and he's taking what he said he'll take. 

Ok...I lasted 5 minutes, without going off topic.  Here is the link.

https://cpj.org/2001/11/us-airstrike-destroys-aljazeera-office-in-kabul/

Yeah...clearly Putin thought things would be easier than they have been.  And a military failure isn't something that would sit well with his tough guy image.  It's scary to think what tragedies will continue to unfold because of one's man's ego. 

[Leeds Ram]

4 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Ok...I lasted 5 minutes, without going off topic.  Here is the link.

https://cpj.org/2001/11/us-airstrike-destroys-aljazeera-office-in-kabul/

Yeah...clearly Putin thought things would be easier than they have been.  And a military failure isn't something that would sit well with his tough guy image.  It's scary to think what tragedies will continue to unfold because of one's man's ego. 

Thanks for that, did you see the correction issued at the bottom? 

[Highgate]

15 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Thanks for that, did you see the correction issued at the bottom? 

Well spotted! ?.  Wiki and the Pew research centre still report it as a missile strike as of today, not sure how reliable spokespeople from US central command are, but I guess it could have been bombs instead.

Were the hospitals in the Ukraine hit with missiles or bombs?  It seems totally beside the point to care about such things given the human tragedy involved, but it would give an indication as to whether they were deliberate acts by the Russian military/Putin or whether they might be just bombing indiscriminately and not caring about the consequences.  It's a philosophical question as to whether the latter is any better than the former really.

[Archied]

17 hours ago, Eddie said:

It's called "Terrorism".

Just add that to the list of Putin's war crimes.

What actually is terrorism ? Is it the only way to fight back of countries or groups who just cannot have a hope in hell of winning what we define as a fair war??‍♂️,, for years and years the wielding of our military and economical power has played a massive part in producing terrorism,

all killing and bullying is WRONG ,violence begets violence , just one mad circle / chicken/ egg scenario that needs ending somehow and that takes thinking beyond the tub thumping and propaganda of all sides and brutal honesty,

[Archied]

16 hours ago, jono said:

It’s a war. One nation invades another by force of arms. This isn’t an action trying to root out extremists who were attacking you . This is war. 
 

If it isn’t war on earth are you going to call it ? A special operation ? 
 

Were multiple organised Ukrainians or the Ukrainian state  involved in violence against Russia ? Did either invade their sovereign territory ? 
 

Russia didn’t like where it thought Ukrainian was going politically. So it crossed their border with soldiers, artillery and tanks and attacked the civilian population. That is called war. 

It’s a total mess, civilians are arming themselves and vowing to fight to the death from day one ,if you are a young Russian soldier sent there to fight ,perhaps something you don’t really want to be doing ,do you have the luxury of not killing civilians? Ukrainian men don’t have the luxury of refusing to fight ,kill or be killed ??‍♂️,

this I NO defence of Russia a view of how sickening war is for the ordinary people destroyed by it 

[Archied]

15 hours ago, Eddie said:

Good old whataboutism can always be relied on.

I'm not interested in debating the whys and wherefores. I leave that to those who claim to 'understand the reasons behind the conflict'.

Whataboutism, another trendy word to cover do as I say not as I do 

[Alph]

Looking at some of the videos. 

We've got Ukrainian soldiers beating and executing a civilian in the street. Are they Ukranian soldiers?

We've got a "Russian tank" swerving to run over a civilian car (with someone inside). The tank actually seems to be Ukranian armored vehicle and the full video shows it to be in combat with another Ukranian armored vehicle. Both firing at each other the whole time.

Then transport truck being driven by a Ukranian soldier being shot at by Ukranian soldiers who obviously think he's a Russian saboteur. 

Both sides accuse each other of using the evacuation corridors to advance. 

Russia are suggesting that Ukraine are framing them. Ukraine are suggesting that its Russian saboteurs. 

@rammieibmentioned why can't Nato intervene on the basis of War Crimes. And I think someone from the UN put forward a plan of US troops going in purely for humanitarian aid. But it seems such a mess and so much information coming out that can't be confirmed. 

I don't see how US or UN troops can be deployed and it not be a declaration of war. The chances of them ending up fighting Russian or "Ukranian" infantry is extremely high in urban combat. 

It's pretty clear that talk of Nuclear weapons is a thinly veiled threat if Nato intervene in that capacity. They responded to Liz Truss by mobilising (or whatever they called it) their nuclear deterrent. Then Lavrov said WW3 must be avoided as it would end up a Nuclear war. These are threats surely?