Was surprised to see Ireland listed. They appear to be some sort of special partner in NATO, probably because there are only about 12,000 in the military and they do not have any tanks or aircraft.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
They should get back to us when it’s Putin’s head that they sever.
JFC, you're making my point for me. I, as a HROT poster, do not have the intel one way or another that he's crazy. Neither do you, or Joe, or any other guys here that are suggesting we get more involved. Well, not you guys directly, because you're living comfortably at home. But, you know, our young guys. Likely, our intelligence agencies probably don't have a clue either. Hence, why the US and NATO hasn't started bombing the shit out of them yet. You guys can say the "almost certainly a bluff" line until you're blue in the face and I'd be the first to say I agree. Luckily, nuclear Armageddon doesn't hinge on my or your dumbass "almost certain" hot takes.
You guys also apparently don't realize the difference between being full-on crazy red button of doom vs. just crazy enough to start escalation using a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But yeah, for sure just go on thinking you guys have the real pulse of the situation. Reading through a thread on HROT has a ton of guys really confident they likely know as much as our career intelligence officers.
I'll leave you with one final question, and I'll hope you answer it honestly. I don't think you will, but hope you and the others at least try:
Since there isn't any question that what Putin is doing is a horrible criminal act and that our/NATO conventional forces would steam roll the Russian's all the way to Moscow (or at least out of Ukraine), why are we not doing it? What's the one main thing preventing us from solving this problem? Why have we went out of our way to cancel scheduled Minute Man ICBM tests?
This is somewhat overstated. The context was that the US ambassador was summoned to hear Russia objecting to Biden calling Putin a war criminal, and saying how such rhetoric risks dangerous ruptures to relations, blahblahblah, etc.
While it's very fair, rhetorically and legally, to characterize Putin in that manner, it's generally not the sort of thing that heads of state should be doing (particularly where ICJ proceedings are pending), which is why psaki walked it back a bit.
Ask our resident HROT experts, we don't have to worry about them at all. Nobody does.
At some point, the people are going to find out they are being lied to....about everything.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
I have no idea why you have such a low opinion of me as to assume I won’t offer an honest opinion - I have replied with logic and calm.
If this was a one off confrontation then I would agree that de-escalation is the appropriate response. But it is not a one off. If Putin wins he will only be emboldened to go farther. As will NK, China, etc. Therefore he, and those like him, cannot win. And if allowed to wage an unending war of attrition he may very well destroy Ukraine with his current approach.
Your whole worry is that he will launch nukes as if that is a foregone conclusion or even a remotely likely event. Anything but! And the Ukrainians, who are in the best position to weigh the risks of a tactical nuke have begged for a no fly zone.
As to your question I assume the US is doing everything they can to de-escalate. I agree when it comes to nukes that we should stand down with our arsenal to the degree possible. I disagree when it comes to NFZ.
This wasn't unique to Russia. We had our own little Project Plowshare
Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]
One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]
Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]
A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]
At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[14] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.
Some history
"In reality, however, the arms race between the US-led Western bloc and the Soviet-dominated East continued. In 1977, the Soviet Union shocked the United States and its allies by replacing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the Eastern bloc with the SS-20 surface-to-surface Saber missile system, capable of pinpointed strikes on targets 5,500 kilometers (3,300 miles) away.
The SS-20, or RSD-10 Pioneer as it was called by the Soviets, was considered the most dangerous intermediate-range nuclear missile system ever deployed in Europe. It could be armed with three independently controlled nuclear warheads, giving it 11 times the destructive power of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. SS-20 missiles could be transported by lorry and prepared for launch in mere minutes, ready to hit targets across western Europe. The SS-20, in short, once again stoked Cold War animosity.
German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, of the Social Democrats, believed that the missiles had tipped the strategic balance in the Soviets' favor. He told the public broadcaster ZDF that he feared that "they will become an instrument to coerce Germany; these rockets are chiefly aimed at Germany." In a 1977 talk at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, Schmidt suggested that NATO station intermediate-range missiles on West German soil to counter the SS-20. "
"In reality, however, the arms race between the US-led Western bloc and the Soviet-dominated East continued. In 1977, the Soviet Union shocked the United States and its allies by replacing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the Eastern bloc with the SS-20 surface-to-surface Saber missile system, capable of pinpointed strikes on targets 5,500 kilometers (3,300 miles) away.
The SS-20, or RSD-10 Pioneer as it was called by the Soviets, was considered the most dangerous intermediate-range nuclear missile system ever deployed in Europe. It could be armed with three independently controlled nuclear warheads, giving it 11 times the destructive power of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. SS-20 missiles could be transported by lorry and prepared for launch in mere minutes, ready to hit targets across western Europe. The SS-20, in short, once again stoked Cold War animosity.
German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, of the Social Democrats, believed that the missiles had tipped the strategic balance in the Soviets' favor. He told the public broadcaster ZDF that he feared that "they will become an instrument to coerce Germany; these rockets are chiefly aimed at Germany." In a 1977 talk at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, Schmidt suggested that NATO station intermediate-range missiles on West German soil to counter the SS-20. "
Last edited:
They were all tough talk at home.
Because you apparently are incapable of making the slightest attempt at comprehending what I am saying, as seen below.
The point I've made, a few times now, is that I don't know what will happen. I also strongly doubt that it would happen, but "almost certainly" doesn't cut it with something like this. Even after I wrote the following previously, you somehow still can't understand that I don't think it's a "foregone conclusion".
"You guys can say the "almost certainly a bluff" line until you're blue in the face and I'd be the first to say I agree. Luckily, nuclear Armageddon doesn't hinge on my or your dumbass "almost certain" hot takes."
JFC, are you guys purposefully being dense?
Last edited:
Since you don't know, why even post at all? hawkeyetraveler doesn't know for certain either, he shouldn't be posting. All of us who are posting speculation and other musings are putting the entire world at risk with these dangerous words.
Please understand the seriousness of the discussions here on HROT.
JFC
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,579
- 113
It really is kind of creepy the parallels between this situation and some of what's been happening in America lately. Nostalgia for the "good old days" (which were seldom actually that good) is a dangerous thing:
For many Russians, there is also the pain of a generational divide with parents and grandparents who grew up in the former Soviet Union.
“My parents, my grandma and grandpa are watching TV and totally believing the TV line so it hurts to speak with them,” said Mira, the aid worker. “At one point, I realized I loved them too much to argue. So I said, let’s not talk about it.”
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,579
- 113
Man, now I'm bummed we didn't have that beer at Big Grove!
I'll buy you one when you return.
But it was just yippy skippy to 'everyone' when Trump did it....
In America, those "good old days" were when taxes on the rich were 70%-90%.
Because we were paying off WWII debt and paying for the Cold War.
Hasn't dissuaded our one "Russian Support Party" here at home, though.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Well all I can say is that I am, like you, just a guy visiting an obscure message board. Neither of us are in charge and neither of us are truly influencing US policy. My opinion is my own (you seem to lump me in with others) and is based on what I have read, my own experience operating in Russia (literally for decades) and logic.
If you disagree that is fine - I think you are wrong, but value the fact you raise your voice. If you think I am a “dumbass” as you called me - also fine. You are certainly not alone in thinking that - hell I would agree that I have my dumbass moments (picking the hawks to the final four for instance).
In any event clearly we will disagree on this topic so I will let our back and forth stop here so the thread gets back on track. I am sure we both can find common ground that we want peace in Ukraine.
This would be like my ex wife seeing me at dinner with my girlfriend and rage texting me we are through.
India's Oil Issues. Read bolded part please 
India buying more volumes of crude oil from Russia is still less than 1 per cent of the total oil imports while the volumes from the United States will rise significantly, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said on Monday.
In the financial year 2020-21 (April 2020 to March 2021), India imported 14 million tonnes of crude from the United States, representing 7.3 per cent of total imports.
"In the current year, based on our imports from the United States and if I look at the projection, these are likely to go up from 14 million tonnes to 16.8 million tonnes or a value of about USD 10 billion of imports of crude oil from the US," he said.
Adding imports of LNG and coal, the trade will be close to USD 13.5 billion, he said. "So, it is a robust relationship on the energy front, and I see this continuing for some time." --
So chillax. We love you Amrika!
And yes buying US arms also.
India buying more volumes of crude oil from Russia is still less than 1 per cent of the total oil imports while the volumes from the United States will rise significantly, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said on Monday.
In the financial year 2020-21 (April 2020 to March 2021), India imported 14 million tonnes of crude from the United States, representing 7.3 per cent of total imports.
"In the current year, based on our imports from the United States and if I look at the projection, these are likely to go up from 14 million tonnes to 16.8 million tonnes or a value of about USD 10 billion of imports of crude oil from the US," he said.
Adding imports of LNG and coal, the trade will be close to USD 13.5 billion, he said. "So, it is a robust relationship on the energy front, and I see this continuing for some time." --
So chillax. We love you Amrika!
And yes buying US arms also.
India's Russian oil import less than 1% of total: Govt
India buying more volumes of crude oil from Russia is still less than 1 per cent of the total oil imports while the volumes from the United States will rise significantly, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said on Monday. Replying
news.rediff.com
No he won't.
First off he isn't winning. His armed forces are being destroyed. Even if he does somehow eventually take Ukraine, he's going to have to hold it, so he'll have to keep putting more of his armed forces there. Where is he going to get the military to try and take over other countries. One of the best things for other countries is for this to keep going on because his arsenal is being destroyed left and right.
Secondly, he's seen just how easily his armed forces have been destroyed. You really think he's going to attack a NATO nation knowing that the US is bound to respond in that theater? You really think he wants the US troops to have a reason to enter Russia itself? His only response will be Nukes, and while I think he's isolated and paranoid, he doesn't have the button sitting on his desk; and I don't think his troops really want them and their families to die. At some point those with the actual guns will realize he's made a brazen mistake and will launch an internal coupe.
While it's a cold/calculated view and one that makes my heart ache, the best thing for the rest of the world in the region is for Russia to keep just smashing it's head against the rock in Ukraine destroying its country economically and weakening it's military every single day. It'll mean hundreds of thousands of dead Ukranians, but Russia has no path to victory any more.
Now if they had taken the country in a week or two then I think he'd have been emboldened, but with what we know. He's lost all leverage outside of Nukes.
Exactly. Let Russia bleed out. In the long run Ukraine will be safer because of it and Russia will confirm itself as a 2nd rate player on the global stage.
China's view of world dominance is different than Russias. I don't think they have a desire for major land expansion. The few land expansions they've taken have all been economically tactical. They want control of their seas. Their form of power is more modern. They want to control trade and grow economic power. I don't see China really having a big push to want to take over neighboring countries. From what I can see, China actually prefers a stable world when it comes to borders, politics, etc... Unstable alliances create economic uncertainty which only hurts them. They and Russia are strange bedfellows who exist simply because they both are internal authoritarians.
I don't know that Russia is safer. That's like saying I cut off all four of my limbs to stop the bleeding. But the rest of Europe will be safer.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,579
- 113
Well this would explain why you see so few bodies in those videos of destroyed Russian columns. Most casualties are probably crispy critters stuck inside
The below suggests that they need to be close to the front because their communications are jammed, the NCOs will not initiate combat on their own, and Ukrainian snipers are quite talented.
If NATO is too candy ass to admit Ukraine after this ends, then there needs to be a similar protective alliance for Ukraine and it's neighbors.
Ah, the ol' "just a message board" line. I know, I said it originally that none of us, including myself, know what we're talking about.
My disagreement is your continued misrepresentation of my position, saying (paraphrasing) that I'm scared for the US to get involved because I think a nuclear strike is a "foregone conclusion" or even likely. I've said, multiple times now, that I very seriously doubt it would happen. But I don't know that to be 100%, and apparently neither do the people involved in this who's opinions actually matter. You know, the US administration and NATO.
Getting in a direct hot war with Russia, even just by enforcing a no fly zone (aka, shooting down Russian aircraft), is only going to rally support at home for him, as the US/NATO will likely be seen as the aggressor to them, even though we're not. Maybe that emboldens him and a few of his underlings to escalate things.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,579
- 113
I don't necessarily disagree with your position -- I keep vacillating between "do more" and "be prudent."
But I would ask you to answer this question honestly:
If the mere suggestion/threat of Russian nukes can paralyze all of NATO and the West, what is to stop Putin from picking off one country after another while saying "And you can't do anything about it, because we have nukes."
Do we allow him to conquer every single non-NATO former Soviet republic?
Another question -- if we are so afraid to use our military against a global bully that is murdering babies, the elderly, targeting hospitals and schools -- why the F---K are we spending BILLIONS on conventional weapons if we aren't willing to use them to stop humanitarian atrocities and the attack on a sovereign state?
We've already drawn a red line. If he attacks a NATO country we will respond. We have made that clear. Most likely he's simply using the threat of Nukes to keep us out of the playing field here, but we have made it clear to Putin that Nukes or not, if he attacks a NATO member we will respond in kind.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,579
- 113
As we have seen over and over, though, every country moves these "red lines" constantly. Technically, Putin said NATO/U.S. has already declared war on Russia due to arming Ukraine.
I think I could get behind a limited escalation -- start with providing Patriot batteries and those Polish MiGs and maybe more high-tech U.S. stealth drones and a limited NFZ.
At some point, Putin's bluff must be called and I'd rather do it while the Russian army is weak/distracted/engaged.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94