NOTE: The following article is satire, not a statement of fact. Treat it as such.
Things got wild at a recent press conference when Nasty Nancy Pelosi announced that the US would be looking into whether it was time to launch a war with Russia to “protect ‘our democracy’ by defending Ukraine from the people that interfered in the 2016 election.”
Immediately after she made that comment, the room erupted, with reporters from every outlet, right or left, shouting questions and demanding answers about what such a war would look like, whether it would be another “police action” type conflict with no formal declaration of war or if Congress would vote to declare war, and if an America ripping itself apart could really fight an enemy that no one was all that interested in fighting.
Eventually, the uproar died down, as Pelosi refused to answer any questions until people quieted down and calmly asked questions as she called on them.
When she finally answered a question, it was from a BBC reporter. She, with a tremor in her voice, asked if Pelosi was “worried that the decision to go to war with the Russian Federation in the Ukraine could lead to a general nuclear conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation?”
Pelosi scoffed, took a long drink from a glass we later found out was full of Tito’s vodka, and said “not at all” because “Putin would never dare to attack ‘our democracy’ again after we show strength and solidarity in Ukraine.”
“But,” Pelosi then added, “even if there is a nuclear war, that won’t be an entirely bad thing. For one, a nuclear winter would be hugely helpful in our fight against global warming, which would be a very big positive you could put on that side of the column. The negative, of course, is that a bunch of people, maybe a third would die. So you have to balance those things, though even the mass casualty event wouldn’t be the worst of outcomes, as it would also help with fighting global warming, fewer cars, you know, and would be deflationary. Fewer people buying TVs and such means less demand for those products, after all, which is deflationary. So there are trade-offs, and 100 million deaths in the US alone would be pretty horrific, but there are positives that need to be considered too.”
That answer left the room speechless for almost an entire minute, with the silence only broken when Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy asked “So you’re saying that a third of America dying would be a good thing because TV prices would drop and global warming might be reversed.”
Pelosi threw back the remaining contents of her glass, said “yes,” and then walked off the stage to a rising chorus of concerned questions from the press pool.