"Destroy" is fairly ambiguous. Russia could do a LOT more with conventional weapons if they wanted to actually hurt Ukrainians. As a random example, all their rail lines, roads, power stations, water stations, etc etc etc, are all still up and working. It wouldn't take nukes for Russia to destroy it all, and it's only because this isn't an actual war that any of those things are still working.
There is a massive difference between trying to remove a political group vs actually "destroying" a country. Your argument mostly just makes you look like the retard here. Did the US need nukes to destroy Iraq or Libya, or do you think Libya is doing fine and dandy?
(post is archived)