Didn’t know that, thanks!

Thanks, yes, that’s helpful. Although not exactly what I’m looking for :)

Thank you, this looks promising!

France and the UK did not use nuclear weapons during the Cold War. And the US explicitly and unambiguously extended nuclear deterrence to the entire NATO territory. But that is no longer the case. France and the UK would have more interest in dishonoring the alliance for existential reasons alone, as long as they themselves are not bombed. But from the US perspective, the Europeans were vassal states. An attack on them had to be seen in the US as an attack on its own territory. The same does not apply from a French or British perspective. Anyone who thinks that they would risk their existence for an act of revenge against Russia is living in La-La Land.

Because a nuclear retaliation by France or the UK against Russia would result in the destruction of France and the UK. Imagine this scenario: Moscow drops a nuclear bomb on a major European city. Do you think Macron would stand up in front of the French people and say: “This means the end for all of us, but we will now take revenge on Russia”?

Strategic nuclear weapons have only one purpose: to protect one’s own existence from other nuclear weapons in a tit-for-tat principle. They are completely unsuitable for supporting allies, because their existence is always considered less relevant than one’s own.

One exception was the Cold War, when the US considered NATO and the Soviets considered the Warsaw Pact to be their quasi-property.

Why would it lead to the complete destruction of Russia?

That would lead to the complete destruction of France/UK. Why would they do that?

Not idly. But they would not use their nuclear bombs.

Why would they? That would mean the end of France/UK or even of humanity.

France or the UK would not start a nuclear war with Russia over the Baltic states, Poland, or Finland, as that would spell their own demise. Nor would they do so for Germany, Italy, or Sweden. And the US cannot be relied upon.

Nuclear weapons

This sounds similar to the debate surrounding meat substitutes. Most people don’t give up meat because they don’t like the taste of it, but because of animal suffering or the environmental impact. The same is likely true here. The problem isn’t the Windows UI, but Microsoft’s behavior as a company. For most people, the purpose of switching is likely to be things like greater freedom, privacy, independence, or a general rejection of proprietary software and big tech. Plus, there’s the large group of people that Microsoft is trying to force into throwing away their perfectly functional PCs. In very few cases are these users likely to think that they dislike Windows itself. If Zorin’s look and feel helps them achieve the switch, then that’s great.

That’s narrow-minded. More users on Linux means greater compatibility. It also means less power for software giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Google. And it means more support for open source overall.