I don't think this is the kind of thing that you want to be confidently wrong about. Regulation makes sense when you consider what's at stake.

No it is your insistence that everything is a nuclear asset when it is not (like an air force base). You might have well said barracks for navy sailors is a nuclear asset because some of the sailors may someday serve on a nuclear sub. It is black and white: You are just wrong.

If a plane is not carrying a nuclear missile. It's not a nuclear asset. My cousin knows someone in the air force. According to you, my cousin is a nuclear asset.

No I understand perfectly. It is you that is mistaken. Attacking a military base after being invaded is a provocation to you. That's how IDIOTIC you are.

I think it's interesting that the hype includes calls for regulation though. These people are genuinely concerned about AI getting out of hand, and they're in a better position to assess danger than you or I.

Of course it is. All of Russia's strategic bombers can carry nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That does not mean they do not carry non-nuclear ones. Also those bombers are not carrying nuclear missiles 24/7. Destroying a strategic bomber sitting on the ground not carrying nuclear cruise missiles is a problem, how?

Again they were parked NOT carrying any ordinance. Well, they were. Some of their ashes are probably in a big trash pile now.

Baahahahahaha. Russia expects others to abide by agreements they said they will not.

Now, you're getting desperate if you think an air force base is a "nuclear facility".

Russia invaded Ukraine years ago. It is simply IDIOTIC to call this a "provocation" and you know it.

Yes and Russia apparently never bothered to change their procedures and that's their problem. The main reason is Russia never built (and probably could not afford to build) fortified hangars to park all their bombers. Considering that some of these air bases are far from Ukraine, the probably thought they were safe.

Dude, you just described Russia's entire bomber fleet as 100% of Russia's strategic bomber fleet is Soviet era. The last strategic bomber Soviet Union deployed was the Tu-160 in 1987. Russia has never deployed a newer bomber since then. Russia's strategic bomber fleet consists of Tu-95 (first service 1952), Tu-22M (1967), and Tu-160 (1987).

Satellite photos from Belaya air base show both Tu-95s and other bombers destroyed as the Tu-95 is very distinctive from the other bombers. I do not have the expertise tell if Tu-22Ms or Tu-160s were destroyed and how many of each but some of them were definitely destroyed. And that is just one air base.

We have speculation: Putin has always considered all former Soviet states as part of Russia. The will never be "independent" in his eyes.

These bombers have been at these bases for a long time. The intelligence could have been a few years old and still valid as Russia was not likely to build a new base and hangars for bombers that were very far from the front lines (Belaya). So Trump's CIA would not need to be involved. Biden's CIA could have provided the intelligence.

That's because Russia does not have anything close to the capability the US has. In terms of just stealth, the retired F-117 Nighthawk, much less the newer B-2 Spirit, and its replacement the B-21 Raider are all far more advanced than Russian bombers. Just like the US relying on the B-52, there are reasons Russia still uses the Tu-95 Bear. However, the US has far newer bombers than Russia.

Satellite photos say otherwise. From the photos, it appears that 4 Tupolev Tu-22M or Tu-160s were destroyed in the one photo the AP was able to source.

You do realize that "nuclear capable" means the bombers can carry nuclear weapons not that they always carry nuclear weapons. Just like nuclear capable bombers in other countries, these bombers are probably capable of carrying standard armament. It would make more sense that most of them had no armament at the time they were destroyed as generally planes are not carrying ordinance 24/7.

I've only seen the last movie but how is the car a character? Other than the humans referring to the car as having character, it is just a car in the movie. Unlike other cars that are characters, Kitt (Knight Rider), Herbie (The Love Bug), and Christine, it does not speak nor perform any actions that is not standard for a car. The only thing it does is it stalled at an inconvenient time for Nicolas Cage. That's all the "personality" I was able to gather from the car.