October 6, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, birdman#12 said: Except there's no scenario that supports the use of nuclear weapons that "saves" millions of lives. The US had battle after battle showing that Japanese were not only willing to fight to the last man, they were willing to enlist civilians, use kamikaze attacks too.......they would have pulled all their troops from manchuria and around SE asia to defend the homeland. Just saying it proves and justifies nothing. And what's with the problem with having a first strike doctrine? That alone is a deterrent to any of our enemies. I really don't care what nuclear doctrine France, England, China or India have...... Anybody with half a brain shouldn't assume about what happened to that pipeline...... Russian showing restraint is laughable......they KNOW if they attacked NATO in any way, any hopes of defeating Ukraine and keeping any gains is over......that's not restraint, that's fear and acknowledgement that their military would be overwhelmed. If an all out war in Europe erupts, then a protracted artillery war might cost the lives of millions. Modern weaponry is much more lethal than in WWII. Millions of lives are at stake. A first strike doctrine might be interpreted as a threat. That's especially true when the U.S. incessantly warns Russia not to use nukes. I guarantee every government on Earth has deduced the U.S. is guilty. Maybe the Russians are restrained by fear. Maybe they are restrained by hopes of a diplomatic resolution. Maybe they are restrained by sanity. Maybe that restraint, for whatever reason, has it's limits. When threats become existential, fear will be overcome. That's assuming Russia fears NATO.
October 6, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Abracadabra said: If an all out war in Europe erupts, then a protracted artillery war might cost the lives of millions. Modern weaponry is much more lethal than in WWII. Millions of lives are at stake. A first strike doctrine might be interpreted as a threat. That's especially true when the U.S. incessantly warns Russia not to use nukes. I guarantee every government on Earth has deduced the U.S. is guilty. Maybe the Russians are restrained by fear. Maybe they are restrained by hopes of a diplomatic resolution. Maybe they are restrained by sanity. Maybe that restraint, for whatever reason, has it's limits. When threats become existential, fear will be overcome. That's assuming Russia fears NATO. Finally admitting why you live in the US instead of Russia. A solid first step.
October 6, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Boogyman said: Finally admitting why you live in the US instead of Russia. A solid first step.
October 6, 20223 yr Just now, Abracadabra said: That's the same look you gave me when I told you to hold the peppers on my turkey sandwich. F it up again and I'm coming across that counter and breaking my hand on your forehead.
October 6, 20223 yr 18 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: If an all out war in Europe erupts, then a protracted artillery war might cost the lives of millions. Modern weaponry is much more lethal than in WWII. Millions of lives are at stake. A first strike doctrine might be interpreted as a threat. That's especially true when the U.S. incessantly warns Russia not to use nukes. I guarantee every government on Earth has deduced the U.S. is guilty. Maybe the Russians are restrained by fear. Maybe they are restrained by hopes of a diplomatic resolution. Maybe they are restrained by sanity. Maybe that restraint, for whatever reason, has it's limits. When threats become existential, fear will be overcome. That's assuming Russia fears NATO. Well, if an all out war erupts, that's different than just Russia-Ukraine. Since the threat of nuclear weapons exist on both sides, the use of them will not assure victory or even survival....and the thought of MAD is a strong deterrent. Again, so different from WW2. Even if NATO was attacked and all out war erupted, it's questionable about how far they would push Russia. When this kind of thing happens, it's tough to predict who will do what. It might start all over the world with conventional weapons, and escalate to nuclear. In which case, life as we know it is over. A first strike doctrine should be interpreted as a threat and a deterrent. And without proof, it doesn't matter what governments think, without proof, it doesn't matter....the consequences of that will be serious when they determine how it happened and who's responsible. All restraint has it limits. And Russian obviously fears NATO.....but Russia alone holds the ability to stop all this now. The "threats" that are being thrown around and the possible escalation are all being caused by Russia. If Putin wants to escalate this by attacking NATO, and then justify the use of nuclear weapons from it.....then that's just a crazy man and that makes all of this unpredictable. Neither Russian itself nor its population is under much threat right now......but attacking NATO or trying to use tactical nuclear weapons is a clear move to escalation.
October 6, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, birdman#12 said: Well, if an all out war erupts, that's different than just Russia-Ukraine. Since the threat of nuclear weapons exist on both sides, the use of them will not assure victory or even survival....and the thought of MAD is a strong deterrent. Again, so different from WW2. Even if NATO was attacked and all out war erupted, it's questionable about how far they would push Russia. When this kind of thing happens, it's tough to predict who will do what. It might start all over the world with conventional weapons, and escalate to nuclear. In which case, life as we know it is over. A first strike doctrine should be interpreted as a threat and a deterrent. And without proof, it doesn't matter what governments think, without proof, it doesn't matter....the consequences of that will be serious when they determine how it happened and who's responsible. All restraint has it limits. And Russian obviously fears NATO.....but Russia alone holds the ability to stop all this now. The "threats" that are being thrown around and the possible escalation are all being caused by Russia. If Putin wants to escalate this by attacking NATO, and then justify the use of nuclear weapons from it.....then that's just a crazy man and that makes all of this unpredictable. Neither Russian itself nor its population is under much threat right now......but attacking NATO or trying to use tactical nuclear weapons is a clear move to escalation. You don't see the contradiction between these two statements? A first strike threat is a deterrent when issued by the U.S. but crazy when issued by Russia. This is the duplicity I'm pointing out which no doubt infuriates other countries. Let's be honest, everything facing Russia in Ukraine right now comes from NATO countries, excluding the bulk of the manpower. NATO is at war with Russia. Setting aside the pretense otherwise is not an escalation.
October 6, 20223 yr 31 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: You don't see the contradiction between these two statements? A first strike threat is a deterrent when issued by the U.S. but crazy when issued by Russia. This is the duplicity I'm pointing out which no doubt infuriates other countries. Let's be honest, everything facing Russia in Ukraine right now comes from NATO countries, excluding the bulk of the manpower. NATO is at war with Russia. Setting aside the pretense otherwise is not an escalation. Well, a doctrine is a policy........even as it can be interpreted as a threat even with no immediate conflict. Russia created a conflict, wants to escalate it and has threatened nuclear weapons use.....So no, I see no contradiction. Policy vs creating a conflict. Nato was a response to soviet expansion after WW2 into eastern europe........What all european countries do know is not to trust Russia.....thus NATO was formed. So let's be honest, USSR/Russia created this problem a long time ago. And Putin wants to reclaim those territories again.......So no, everything facing Russia right now comes from Putin.
October 6, 20223 yr Vietnam is a classic proxy war, with the Viet Cong substituting for the Soviet bloc, and the U.S. providing aid and air support (bombing) to a puppet regime.
October 6, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said: Vietnam is a classic proxy war, with the Viet Cong substituting for the Soviet bloc, and the U.S. providing aid and air support (bombing) to a puppet regime. We lost 50k American soldiers in Vietnam. How was that a proxy war?
October 6, 20223 yr 36 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: We lost 50k American soldiers in Vietnam. How was that a proxy war? Because the logic was "If we don't fight the Commies in Southeast Asia, we'll soon be fighting them on the shores of California." It was an exercise theoretically directed at the Soviets, informed by domino theory. One of the greatest miscalculations of Vietnam was that it was part of some grander internationalist plot centered in Moscow and Beijing. While they lent support of varying kinds, it was really a homegrown revolution, and our involvement only made the West seem more unsavory, allowing Ho Chi Minh to take up the mantle of an anti-imperialist protector of Vietnamese self-determination.
October 6, 20223 yr The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says it has spent $290 million on a drug to treat radiation sickness in the event of a nuclear emergency. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3676691-us-purchases-290-million-of-drug-for-use-in-radiological-and-nuclear-emergencies/ Probably normal
October 6, 20223 yr Turns out it's real with the caveat he said to perform a first strike if we see preparations are under way for a nuclear attack from Russia. He needs to come out and fix this before it gets out of hand.
October 6, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says it has spent $290 million on a drug to treat radiation sickness in the event of a nuclear emergency. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3676691-us-purchases-290-million-of-drug-for-use-in-radiological-and-nuclear-emergencies/ Probably normal Prudent.
October 6, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, dawkdaballhawk said: Is this verified? It has to be taken out of context or something, right? Total nonsense and not at all what he is proposing.
October 6, 20223 yr 33 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said: Turns out it's real with the caveat he said to perform a first strike if we see preparations are under way for a nuclear attack from Russia. He needs to come out and fix this before it gets out of hand. WRONG! He is basically saying NATO should use the conventional strike they are stating would likely come in the event of a nuclear strike in Ukraine. He is NOT advocating for NATO nuclear first strike. regardless, NATO will do neither
October 6, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Boogyman said: Lmao. Abra swam to Alaska to get away. Illegal immigrants hope they’re fully vetted. Could be part of the World Order underground. Q is on top of it.
October 6, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said: Illegal immigrants hope they’re fully vetted. Could be part of the World Order underground. Q is on top of it. The Queens ghost just told me she will allow it.
October 6, 20223 yr Is it surprising that he would want NATO to intervene before his country gets nuked? Whether or not NATO should intervene is a different inquiry but his request is what a sane person would do short of just surrendering. Folks here overthink too much.
October 6, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, Thrive said: Is it surprising that he would want NATO to intervene before his country gets nuked? Whether or not NATO should intervene is a different inquiry but his request is what a sane person would do short of just surrendering. Folks here overthink too much. I don’t think that is the problem.
Create an account or sign in to comment