Human freedom index

Ukraine

6.86

Russia

6.23

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

This is fake, but if it’s real it can easily be intercepted. 

3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nah. The US would carry on, as would other nations, even in the face of tragic losses. Russia would cease to exist.

Dude, they have more nukes than we do and they’re  going to be detonating them on every major city, military base, and industrial center in the country, along with at high altitude to take out all of our electronics.

Trucks, trains and planes would stop working. Food and medicine stops arriving. No electricity. Modern society would cease to exist and the majority of Americans would end up dead.

37 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nah. The US would carry on, as would other nations, even in the face of tragic losses. Russia would cease to exist.

When TEW is destroying you it is time to reset your opinions

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Dude, they have more nukes than we do and they’re  going to be detonating them on every major city, military base, and industrial center in the country, along with at high altitude to take out all of our electronics.

Trucks, trains and planes would stop working. Food and medicine stops arriving. No electricity. Modern society would cease to exist and the majority of Americans would end up dead.

You are also one step up from toastjenkins congrats

27 minutes ago, Bill said:

Everyone has Fd her because the ussy is that good.

Is Ukraine my wife? No, but, then again, my grandfather wasn't married to France or Belgium either.

Am I willing to die for Ukraine? No, but I'm willing to die for someone else's freedom, particularly when they themselves are fighting so hard to keep it. To keep women and children from getting raped and murdered. I do what I need to do to help others. To plant a tree that I wont be able to enjoy the shade of. That's what the difference is between us.

My analogy sucks to you because you're overcomplicating it. You look at it in terms of what you're willing to do to protect your own interests, but it's not about your own interests. It's a simple observation that you're a coward and self serving. Whether or not the thing you would have to defend is yours or not is a moot point. When in the face of an obstacle from an abstract possibility, you fold like a cheap lawn chair rather than entertain a rational thought about it.  So when you say that you would defend your wife, I know it's a farcical statement.  I've seen guys like you. I've seen what happens to guys like you when the chips are down. The only one you would defend is yourself, and you would do whatever is possible to that extent.

Go forth and cower.

Worry, like a woman.

 

"You don’t want to risk a nuclear apocalypse therefor you wouldn’t defend your wife” has got to be the dumbest wannabe internet psychologist take I’ve ever heard.

Listen dude, you’re not brave for wanting to risk direct war between the US and Russia. You’re just stupid and irresponsible. 

 

18 minutes ago, TEW said:

Dude, they have more nukes than we do and they’re  going to be detonating them on every major city, military base, and industrial center in the country, along with at high altitude to take out all of our electronics.

Trucks, trains and planes would stop working. Food and medicine stops arriving. No electricity. Modern society would cease to exist and the majority of Americans would end up dead.

Nope.

Russia has about 1500 warheads deployed. Most are of the low yield, tactical variety. Of those, many are deployed to non-ICBM delivery systems. 

In all, you'd have maybe 500 targeting the U.S.. Many will be intercepted.

That's why nuclear war strategy has most targets being strategic targets like bases, silos, etc... There are simply not enough warheads deployed.

The whole notion that Russia would basically blanket U.S. population centers with nukes is a total farce. Most Americans would survive.

Technically, the U.S. does have a defense ICBM missile system. It's called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), and it's the only system currently deployed to defend the continental U.S., with 44 interceptors based in Alaska and California. Unfortunately, it probably doesn't work.
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/03/why-scientists-still-cant-figure-out-how-to-intercept-icbms/

Salon is filled with Russians and Trump bots. Intercepting ICBMs is easy. That’s why zero Russian missiles have hit Ukraine

 

4 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

Technically, the U.S. does have a defense ICBM missile system. It's called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), and it's the only system currently deployed to defend the continental U.S., with 44 interceptors based in Alaska and California. Unfortunately, it probably doesn't work.
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/03/why-scientists-still-cant-figure-out-how-to-intercept-icbms/

Salon is filled with Russians and Trump bots. Intercepting ICBMs is easy. That’s why zero Russian missiles have hit Ukraine

 

Yet another great link, Abra

18 minutes ago, TEW said:

 

"You don’t want to risk a nuclear apocalypse therefor you wouldn’t defend your wife” has got to be the dumbest wannabe internet psychologist take I’ve ever heard.

Listen dude, you’re not brave for wanting to risk direct war between the US and Russia. You’re just stupid and irresponsible. 

The only person in this thread that you've had a rational discourse with is Abra.

Think about that for a second.

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

The only person in this thread that you've had a rational discourse with is Abra.

Think about that for a second.

  

"You’re irrational because you don’t want to risk nuclear Armageddon!”

You just can’t make this up!  

22 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Nope.

Russia has about 1500 warheads deployed. Most are of the low yield, tactical variety. Of those, many are deployed to non-ICBM delivery systems. 

In all, you'd have maybe 500 targeting the U.S.. Many will be intercepted.

That's why nuclear war strategy has most targets being strategic targets like bases, silos, etc... There are simply not enough warheads deployed.

The whole notion that Russia would basically blanket U.S. population centers with nukes is a total farce. Most Americans would survive.

Many will not be intercepted. And just a few detonated at high altitude would kill half or more of all Americans within a year.

Do you people still not understand how fragile the modern world is, even after COVID?

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Everyone has Fd her because the ussy is that good.

Is Ukraine my wife? No, but, then again, my grandfather wasn't married to France or Belgium either.

Am I willing to die for Ukraine? No, but I'm willing to die for someone else's freedom, particularly when they themselves are fighting so hard to keep it. To keep women and children from getting raped and murdered. I do what I need to do to help others. To plant a tree that I wont be able to enjoy the shade of. That's what the difference is between us.

My analogy sucks to you because you're overcomplicating it. You look at it in terms of what you're willing to do to protect your own interests, but it's not about your own interests. It's a simple observation that you're a coward and self serving. Whether or not the thing you would have to defend is yours or not is a moot point. When in the face of an obstacle from an abstract possibility, you fold like a cheap lawn chair rather than entertain a rational thought about it.  So when you say that you would defend your wife, I know it's a farcical statement.  I've seen guys like you. I've seen what happens to guys like you when the chips are down. The only one you would defend is yourself, and you would do whatever is possible to that extent.

Go forth and cower.

Worry, like a woman.

Why is it so quiet about Iran then? 

12 minutes ago, TEW said:

  

"You’re irrational because you don’t want to risk nuclear Armageddon!”

You just can’t make this up!  

Be you:

Make money thanks to the global system wherein the US makes security guarantees in exchange for the US Dollar being the reserve currency. 

Also you:

Act surprised when the US has to fulfill security guarantees.

35 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Nope.

Russia has about 1500 warheads deployed. Most are of the low yield, tactical variety. Of those, many are deployed to non-ICBM delivery systems. 

In all, you'd have maybe 500 targeting the U.S.. Many will be intercepted.

That's why nuclear war strategy has most targets being strategic targets like bases, silos, etc... There are simply not enough warheads deployed.

The whole notion that Russia would basically blanket U.S. population centers with nukes is a total farce. Most Americans would survive.

You know TEW has achieved peak stupid when he gets me and mayan to agree on something

11 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Why is it so quiet about Iran then? 

One thing at a time.

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

Be you:

Make money thanks to the global system wherein the US makes security guarantees in exchange for the US Dollar being the reserve currency. 

Also you:

Act surprised when the US has to fulfill security guarantees.

We didn’t make any security "guarantees” to Ukraine, genius. If you’re going to start throwing around allusions to the NPT and Budapest, get the language right. 

24 minutes ago, TEW said:

Many will not be intercepted. And just a few detonated at high altitude would kill half or more of all Americans within a year.

Do you people still not understand how fragile the modern world is, even after COVID?

False. I believe you are seriously misinformed on the topic. 

Just now, TEW said:

We didn’t make any security "guarantees” to Ukraine, genius. If you’re going to start throwing around allusions to the NPT and Budapest, get the language right. 

Be you.

Confuse an allusion to Bretton Woods for one to Budapest. 

7 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

False. I believe you are seriously misinformed on the topic. 

This is what our own military believes:

Quote

U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors are designed to intercept a few North Korean ICBMs that approach the United States over the North Polar region. But current U.S. BMD systems are not arranged to defend against even a single ICBM that approaches the United States from over the South Polar region, which is the direction toward which North Korea launches its satellites...This is not a new idea. The Soviets pioneered and tested just such a specific capability decades ago—we call it a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS)...So, North Korea doesn’t need an ICBM to create this existential threat. It could use its demonstrated satellite launcher to carry a nuclear weapon over the South Polar region and detonate it...over the United States to create a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP)...The result could be to shut down the U.S. electric power grid for an indefinite period, leading to the death within a year of up to 90 percent of all Americans—as the EMP Commission testified over eight years ago.8

 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20171012/106467/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-PryP-20171012.pdf

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Be you.

Confuse an allusion to Bretton Woods for one to Budapest. 

Be you.

Don’t realize you were literally quoted as saying the US made security guarantees and think that has anything to do with Bretton Woods.

Be you.

Don’t understand that Ukraine didn’t become a country until half a century after Bretton Woods.

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

Be you.

Don’t realize you were literally quoted as saying the US made security guarantees and think that has anything to do with Bretton Woods.

Be you.

Don’t understand that Ukraine didn’t become a country until half a century after Bretton Woods.

Be you.

Not understand how dominos work.

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Be you.

Not understand how dominos work.

Be you.

Unironically lecture people about how dominos work while advocating for direct conflict between the US and Russia. 

Just now, TEW said:

Be you.

Unironically lecture people about how dominos work while advocating for direct conflict between the US and Russia. 

Be you.

Be so wrapped up in histeria that you can't discern between an argument for direct conflict between the US and Russia and an argument about the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine.