Maybe drop one to show that Russia still has the capability, then another on a different city to show that Russia can keep dropping bombs for as long as it takes?

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, another hexbear genius that thinks Putin and his cabinet would survive if they dropped a nuke.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whoosh?

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a shitty, misleading comparison not worth acknowledging.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for your contribution!

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for using your alt to downvote me!

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Sweet of you to think that

[–] boboblaw@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Good idea. I've heard that nuking cities is a very effective way of forcing a stubborn enemy nation to surrender.

It's also preferable to a prolonged invasion and conventional bombing campaign, simply in terms of number of casualties. The number of people killed by the two nuclear bombings it would take to force Ukraine to surrender would be significantly smaller than the number of casualties incurred by a drawn out conventional invasion.

Seems like the only moral course of action for Putin to take.