Wouldn’t it be nice if the Ukrainians all had rifles?

I wonder if Russia’s action against Ukraine will make some people reevaluate the benefit of an armed populace.

22 thoughts on “Wouldn’t it be nice if the Ukrainians all had rifles?”

    1. That only matters if the opposition is willing to use the nukes in the situation in question. Unless and until that moment comes, rifles are at least to some degree a factor.

      2. Putin has ordered Russia’s military to put its deterrence forces, which include nuclear weapons, on “special alert”.

        1. Of course he did. He’s Putin.

          But that doesn’t mean he will use them. Maybe he will, but up to the minute he actually does use them, doesn’t it make sense for people to try to defend themselves with what weapons they can get access to? And isn’t it better, in a situation like this, that they HAVE access?

          1. QUOTE: That only matters if the opposition is willing to use the nukes in the situation in question….Of course he did. He’s Putin.

            Given his order, it appears he’s “willing”. After all, he’s Putin.

            QUOTE: Maybe he will, but up to the minute he actually does use them, doesn’t it make sense for people to try to defend themselves with what weapons they can get access to?

            Did I say that it didn’t make sense for people to try to defend themselves?
            My point was, despite valiant attempts, how effective will “rifles” be when the opposition has such advanced weapons such as nukes? Yet, who knows, maybe such a rifle regiment might take out tanks, missiles or nukes. Anyone who wants to try…have at it.

  2. So wouldn’t it be nice if the Ukrainians all had nukes?
    I wonder if Russia’s action against Ukraine will make some people reevaluate the benefit of an nuclear-armed populace.

    1. Ukraine had nukes. We talked them into giving up in exchange for (obviously empty) pledges of security.

      1. Wasn’t that the point of wanting Ukraine to join NATO. But Tucker Carlson was saying that Russia is justified in preempting such security.

        2. QUOTE: But Tucker Carlson was saying that Russia is justified in preempting such security.

          Seems Russia thought differently when signing the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. As well, in 2009, when releasing a joint statement with the US that the memorandum’s security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty.

        3. I am unpersuaded of Robin’s claim that Tucker is encouraging / justifying Russia, but if he is doing that, he’s an ass.

          1. One must always point out to students of logic that asses are sometimes right, as in this case (if indeed I am one).

            1. Just to be clear, I was saying that Tucker is an ass if he’s encouraging or justifying Putin.

  3. Is this supposed to be some 2A screed? As far as I can tell, Ukrainians were allowed to have weapons before all this occurred. The Ukes did pass a law in the last week where they are allowed to open carry. Of course, that seems justified. But, if I go out in public and seem some asshole open carrying a pistol or worse, a semi-auto rifle, I just think of what a rude asshole they are. I don’t even have a gun. My son, OTOH, never goes anywhere without packing. But, he never open carries.

    The Ukrainians have Kalashnikovs and such. They are handing them out like candy. IDK what use they are going to be against armored vehicles. Against soldiers with body armor and helmets, you’d have to be a pretty good shot to take one out if you’re not so protected. What the Ukrainians need are Stinger missiles to take out air support, anti-tank weapons, anti-artillery weapons, and trained snipers. They probably need training in how to make IEDs.

    1. It is certainly true that professional armies are far more deadly than armed citizens. Still, an invading army would rather deal with an unarmed population.

      If we really wanted to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, we should have given them anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons six months ago.

  4. For 20 years the Budapest Memorandum was effective without Ukraine having an armed populace. So, what happened to change the dynamic? Why did Russia feel justified to invade Ukraine especially given the memorandum clause…“respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders”?

Comments are closed.