Things are heating up in the Donbass

[tirwin1]

What are you talking about? Ukraine doesn't have nukes either. I thought it was an interesting point.

Here you have the US bombing Japan to save lives over all (which I think it did)

But if Russia were to use them in Ukraine to save lives theres a problem?

Thats a hell of a double standard dont ya think?

Where to begin. It's not a double standard because the situation is entirely different from 1945. Do you really not understand this?

If Putin's goal is to take and control Ukrainian territory it doesn't make much sense to make part of it a radioactive wasteland. Plus it guarantees an ongoing insurgency.

Finally, as spat has patiently explained to you multiple times, there will be no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Once the first nuke flies, they will all start flying. Clearly you live in some fantasy world where Putin can use a nuke in this day and age and the rest of the world shrugs.

So no, it wasn't an interesting point it was a ridiculous and unserious one. Why you thought it had merit is beyond me.

 

[Mosinitis]

NATO has access to Oreshnick impact site and can easily verify what Putin has said about its capabilities. It wouldn't make any sense for Putin to make claims about Oreshnick that weren't true. The missile didn't carry explosive payload, next one probably will. Power of a nuke, but without radiation.

Putin at the meeting of common defense alliance of former Soviet Republics in Kazakhstan.

 

[holdover]

Where to begin. It's not a double standard because the situation is entirely different from 1945. Do you really not understand this?

If Putin's goal is to take and control Ukrainian territory it doesn't make much sense to make part of it a radioactive wasteland. Plus it guarantees an ongoing insurgency.

Finally, as spat has patiently explained to you multiple times, there will be no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Once the first nuke flies, they will all start flying. Clearly you live in some fantasy world where Putin can use a nuke in this day and age and the rest of the world shrugs.

So no, it wasn't an interesting point it was a ridiculous and unserious one. Why you thought it had merit is beyond me.

Wow, you dont get it at all.its pretty easy to see why it was beyond you .

 

[GOPerfect]

I did a bit of Black Friday shopping. Just got home.

I checked the news, still no Nukes from ole Putin?

C'mon man!!!

 

[GOPerfect]

BREAKING: Ukraine's Zelensky said he is willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war for the first time.....

 

[ManualF150]

BREAKING: Ukraine's Zelensky said he is willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war for the first time.....

I've been wondering/too lazy to look it up... is Zelensky spelled with one y or 2 y?

 

[holdover]

Where to begin. It's not a double standard because the situation is entirely different from 1945. Do you really not understand this?

It is very much a double standard. the situation is not entirely different . I wont ask, because you dont.

If Putin's goal is to take and control Ukrainian territory it doesn't make much sense to make part of it a radioactive wasteland. Plus it guarantees an ongoing insurgency.

I agree 100%, Ive said many times before , He wont use nukes . Hes probably going to have an insurgency anyways if theres anyone left

Finally, as spat has patiently explained to you multiple times, there will be no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Once the first nuke flies, they will all start flying. Clearly you live in some fantasy world where Putin can use a nuke in this day and age and the rest of the world shrugs.

Ukraine doesn't have nukes, Ukraine is not apart of NATO. No I dont live in a fantasy world at all, I live in a world where people cant see the next step and analyze the pros and cons of the next possible move

For instance , Russia uses 2 nukes in Ukraine , Your contention is that the entire world would resolve this by ending the world in a giant fireball. No. Your confusing it with article 5 Of the NATO treaty which does state this. Which obviously Ukraine is not apart of
Spat seems to think and you did agree with him that every country in the world with nukes would retaliate? . hahaha , no there is no such agreement or treaty that states this as policy ( barring NATO)

So your the president, the call comes in at 3 am and wakes you out of bed to tell you the news that Russia used 2 nuclear bombs in Ukraine , Your response is a full blown Nuclear war ??, Armageddon?? And you decide that the best thing we can do is annihilate the earth? LOL your kidding me ? And you achieved what exactly? Dont you think , people other than you can come up with a better solution?

I would guess the president would call for an emergency meeting with all of his advisors and consider all the possibilities and repercussions

What If Isreal used a nuke against Iran? You guys think the US UK France ect are going to nuke Isreal?? Your nuts Thats why no such policy exists.

 

[spat]

If it lead to a full scale nuclear war, obviously it wouldn't . it would cost more lives than it saved negating the purpose.Other wise, yes it would save lives .

In the event that US NATO would not escalate thier response to a global nuclear war the Russians would seem justified on humanitarian grounds to drop 2 bombs and end the war in less than a week , call it a day, lets get back to business.

Why do you think 2 tactical nukes would end the war ?

What targets would they hit ?

 

[spat]

NATO has access to Oreshnick impact site and can easily verify what Putin has said about its capabilities. It wouldn't make any sense for Putin to make claims about Oreshnick that weren't true. The missile didn't carry explosive payload, next one probably will. Power of a nuke, but without radiation.

Putin at the meeting of common defense alliance of former Soviet Republics in Kazakhstan.

It's almost irrelevant to put a an explosive payload on an IRBM. The kinetic energy of the RV is so high that the explosives don't add much unless they are nuclear.

 

[holdover]

Why do you think 2 tactical nukes would end the war ?

What targets would they hit ?

It was just a comparison to WW2.

 

[spat]

It was just a comparison to WW2.

Is Russia going to nuke 2 Ukrainian cities ?

What do you think the world will do if Kiev goes up in a mushroom cloud ?

It's inevitable that the fallout would drift over several NATO members, and while it wouldn't be significant from a military standpoint, I'm pretty sure Poland at least would be screaming "Article V" before the first click of the first Geiger counter.

And while it's unlikely NATO would respond with NUKEs, conventional strikes to disable the Russian ICBMs would probably be forthcoming.

The lifespan of Russian submariners would probably be measured in minutes.

 

[holdover]

Is Russia going to nuke 2 Ukrainian cities ?

I doubt it. it was just a hypothetical situation pointing out why its OK to use nukes to save lives in one situation but not to save lives in another . Sure you can split hairs and find differences of course. But the premise remains the same. .The Truth remains constant.

If the captain of a battle damaged ship is forced to close off the bottom decks to prevent his ship and crew from being lost, even if it means the death of his crew members below Does it matter if his ship is Russian or Ukrainian?

The premise of taking lives to save lives is the concept were looking at. the nationalities dont matter the idea is the same. the details are different

What do you think the world will do if Kiev goes up in a mushroom cloud ?

It's inevitable that the fallout would drift over several NATO members, and while it wouldn't be significant from a military standpoint, I'm pretty sure Poland at least would be screaming "Article V" before the first click of the first Geiger counter.

And while it's unlikely NATO would respond with NUKEs, conventional strikes to disable the Russian ICBMs would probably be forthcoming.

The lifespan of Russian submariners would probably be measured in minutes.

I truely dont know, But I dont think it would be automatic Armageddon. Because that response achieves nothing, which makes it a dumb response. Cooler heads must figure a way around it , its the only option really.

 

[GOPerfect]

Is Russia going to nuke 2 Ukrainian cities ?

What do you think the world will do if Kiev goes up in a mushroom cloud ?

It's inevitable that the fallout would drift over several NATO members, and while it wouldn't be significant from a military standpoint, I'm pretty sure Poland at least would be screaming "Article V" before the first click of the first Geiger counter.

And while it's unlikely NATO would respond with NUKEs, conventional strikes to disable the Russian ICBMs would probably be forthcoming.

The lifespan of Russian submariners would probably be measured in minutes.

Nothing. No other nation will launch nukes at Russian cities.

Promise.

 

[tirwin1]

So your the president, the call comes in at 3 am and wakes you out of bed to tell you the news that Russia used 2 nuclear bombs in Ukraine , Your response is a full blown Nuclear war ??, Armageddon?? And you decide that the best thing we can do is annihilate the earth? LOL your kidding me ? And you achieved what exactly? Dont you think , people other than you can come up with a better solution?

You're almost there. Just keep that thought process going. Why only two? Why not 3? or 4? or 20? Please tell us the specific number of nukes that putin can use that keeps us on the safe side of full blown nuclear war.

The answer is none. Because the use of one automatically leads to the conclusion more could be coming. Which leads to the logical next step. As spat has explained ad nauseum. Which is why the original question was ridiculous. But for some reason you still don't get it.

 

[Mosinitis]

You're almost there. Just keep that thought process going. Why only two? Why not 3? or 4? or 20? Please tell us the specific number of nukes that putin can use that keeps us on the safe side of full blown nuclear war.

The answer is none. Because the use of one automatically leads to the conclusion more could be coming. Which leads to the logical next step. As spat has explained ad nauseum. Which is why the original question was ridiculous. But for some reason you still don't get it.

White House is considering giving nukes to Ukraine. At least two U.S. lawmakers openly advocating it. So far it's a no go, but that was the routine for crossing every previous escalation line. Putin could be left with no choice.

 

[Mosinitis]

BREAKING: Ukraine's Zelensky said he is willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war for the first time.....

He softened his demands by saying he can agree to a ceasefire while Russia is still in control of disputed territory. He didn't give up his claim to any 1991 territory. The terms for freezing the conflict being proposed by General Kellogg will be unacceptable to Russia. They been down that road before.

 

[spat]

I doubt it. it was just a hypothetical situation pointing out why its OK to use nukes to save lives in one situation but not to save lives in another . Sure you can split hairs and find differences of course. But the premise remains the same. .The Truth remains constant.

If the captain of a battle damaged ship is forced to close off the bottom decks to prevent his ship and crew from being lost, even if it means the death of his crew members below Does it matter if his ship is Russian or Ukrainian?

The premise of taking lives to save lives is the concept were looking at. the nationalities dont matter the idea is the same. the details are different

I truely dont know, But I dont think it would be automatic Armageddon. Because that response achieves nothing, which makes it a dumb response. Cooler heads must figure a way around it , its the only option really.

No, the point is that the guys who started the damn war are responsible for 100% of the deaths in it.

The guys who got invaded aren't.

So, Ukraine would be fully justified in Nuking Moscow right now if they were able. Even as a first strike.

Just like we were in 1945.

Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, we didn't start the war.

Think of nukes like this.

You can shoot someone in the head if they attack you and your life is in danger. It doesn't matter if you pissed them off first. Maybe you slept with their wife, maybe you stole some business from them, whatever, doesn't matter. None of that justifies them shooting at you, but once they start, you are 100% justified in shooting them.

That's how it is with Russia and Ukraine.

Russia is basically treating Ukraine like their ex girlfriend, and your argument is "well, they're justified in shooting at her, because when they broke up Russia told her she couldn't date that NATO guy, and she's been hitting on him all week".

 

[spat]

Nothing. No other nation will launch nukes at Russian cities.

Promise.

Who needs to nuke Russian cities ?

NATO wouldn't conduct a nuclear strike, they don't have to.

They can maintain the moral high ground by just eliminating the Russian nuclear threat using conventional weapons.

Russia has about 300 ICBMs and a few subs at sea.

Take out those subs and silos and they no longer present an existential nuclear threat.

Subs are easy, give the order and nobody will even know what happened, just suddenly Moscow can't contact any of them anymore and they don't know why.

Silos are a bit more difficult, but strikes with PGMs can easily render them unusable. You just need to dismantle some air defenses first.

During the cold war that was not a realistic prospect, but this is not the cold war. The disparity in force between the 2 nations now is like the KC chiefs playing your local high-school team.

 

[holdover]

Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, we didn't start the war.

Thats a great opinion,

Who started the war against Japan? Most morons will say japan. But those who realize an oil embargo against a country that has no oil was an act of war So it depends on who your asking.

In this case NATO encroachment was guaranteed to start a war .Agreements were broken to do it . Every swinging dick in Washington knew exactly what would happen and they did it anyway. They even armed Ukraine to the teeth to do it , signed an agreement with Russia to buy time to arm them . FUCK that shit! Anyone with a brain Knows god dam well who started the war.

Hell, Russia wasnt even prepared to invade , that should tell you something . they started the invasion with around 200K troops, they now have over 700K in Ukraine , Hello!

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Is Russia going to nuke 2 Ukrainian cities ?

What do you think the world will do if Kiev goes up in a mushroom cloud ?

It's inevitable that the fallout would drift over several NATO members, and while it wouldn't be significant from a military standpoint, I'm pretty sure Poland at least would be screaming "Article V" before the first click of the first Geiger counter.

And while it's unlikely NATO would respond with NUKEs, conventional strikes to disable the Russian ICBMs would probably be forthcoming.

The lifespan of Russian submariners would probably be measured in minutes.

Russia believes in a risky strategy to "escalate to deescalate".

Basically it's as simple as, are we willing to risk Washington, London etc in addition to hundreds of smaller cities, our economy, our government etc for a 100kt airburst over some random irrelevant area of Ukraine? A country not even a NATO member we have no obligation to defend?

It's cold calculated logic that the collective west isn't willing to have their entire lavish cushy way of life anhilated and will back down to maintain the status quo.

And in that scenario you mentioned if we start hunting down Russian missile silos, road mobile launchers and submarines, then Russia is left with a choice, "use them or lose them". That's a terrible thing to make them decide quickly. I hate that answer. It's like Sun Tzu teaching to "always leave your enemy an out". Give them an opportunity to withdraw.

 

[tirwin1]

Thats a great opinion,

Who started the war against Japan? Most morons will say japan. But those who realize an oil embargo against a country that has no oil was an act of war So it depends on who your asking.

I see what the problem is. The fact you refer to people that think Japan was the aggressor as "morons" is all I need to know. You really need to look in the mirror when throwing comments like that out. Ron White where are you when we need you lol.

 

[Mosinitis]

Historical fact. The war in Ukraine was already going on when Russia invaded. Shelling of Donbass was a war. Civil war or war for independence, it was a WAR.

 

[Robin]

Nothing. No other nation will launch nukes at Russian cities.

Promise.

No nukes today GOP, but Vlad the Mad looks positively radiant!

Robin

 

[holdover]

I see what the problem is. The fact you refer to people that think Japan was the aggressor as "morons" is all I need to know. You really need to look in the mirror when throwing comments like that out. Ron White where are you when we need you lol.

You really need to do your homework .your knowledge of history gives yourself away

 

[GOPerfect]

No, the point is that the guys who started the damn war are responsible for 100% of the deaths in it.

The guys who got invaded aren't.

So, Ukraine would be fully justified in Nuking Moscow right now if they were able. Even as a first strike.

Just like we were in 1945.

Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, we didn't start the war.

Think of nukes like this.

You can shoot someone in the head if they attack you and your life is in danger. It doesn't matter if you pissed them off first. Maybe you slept with their wife, maybe you stole some business from them, whatever, doesn't matter. None of that justifies them shooting at you, but once they start, you are 100% justified in shooting them.

That's how it is with Russia and Ukraine.

Russia is basically treating Ukraine like their ex girlfriend, and your argument is "well, they're justified in shooting at her, because when they broke up Russia told her she couldn't date that NATO guy, and she's been hitting on him all week".

Russia did not start thus war/conflict.

 

[spat]

Thats a great opinion,

Who started the war against Japan? Most morons will say japan. But those who realize an oil embargo against a country that has no oil was an act of war So it depends on who your asking.

In this case NATO encroachment was guaranteed to start a war .Agreements were broken to do it . Every swinging dick in Washington knew exactly what would happen and they did it anyway. They even armed Ukraine to the teeth to do it , signed an agreement with Russia to buy time to arm them . FUCK that shit! Anyone with a brain Knows god dam well who started the war.

Hell, Russia wasnt even prepared to invade , that should tell you something . they started the invasion with around 200K troops, they now have over 700K in Ukraine , Hello!

It doesn't matter how many times you tell your Ex she's not allowed to date someone, you don't get to assault her when she does.

It doesn't matter if "everyone knows" you're a psycho who will assault her for doing it, you're still wrong when you do.

And an oil embargo against a country that has already attacked half their neighbors isn't an act if war. Invading your neighbors is an act of war.

The only reason Japan needed more oil was because they were raping China.

I honestly can't understand anyone looking at WWII and thinking "the Japansese were justified".

What's next, "the Jews had it coming ?"

 

[spat]

Russia did not start thus war/conflict.

They 100% did.

They had no right to tell Ukraine who they can and can't associate with.

I think my "ex girlfriend" analogy is very apt.

Russia doesn't own Ukraine anymore, they don't get to tell them who they can and cannot associate with.

Russian demands that Ukraine not join NATO are irrelevant because Russia never had a right to issue them to begin with.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Guys don't forget about the "Nazi" sympathizers and other extremists like the Azov who were shelling areas in the donbas.

Back before this war really started even CNN and MSNBC were running stories about radical Ukrainian extremists and Nazis.

That entire narrative vanished overnight when they got their talking points to align and report the narrative as they were told to.

 

[spat]

Guys don't forget about the "Nazi" sympathizers and other extremists like the Azov who were shelling areas in the donbas.

Back before this war really started even CNN and MSNBC were running stories about radical Ukrainian extremists and Nazis.

That entire narrative vanished overnight when they got their talking points to align and report the narrative as they were told to.

So, suddenly CNN and MSNBC are credible determiners of "who is a NAZI" ?

Pretty sure they would slap that label on 95% of the posters here.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

So, suddenly CNN and MSNBC are credible determiners of "who is a NAZI" ?

Pretty sure they would slap that label on 95% of the posters here.

No they're not. I'm just using it to point out how this narrative has quickly changed.