If 1% work we’re talking millions dead….can’t fix stupid.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
You clearly don't understand nuclear attack theory. If Putin uses nukes the graduated response would coccur and include china. We would be required to target China, if not within a few short months we would have Chinese soldiers marching in our destroyed cities.
China does not have the forward capability to transport their millions of troops across the sea to attack our cities.
And what would be the point of invading a nuked city poisonous with radiation?
The soviet union has 6 Typhoon class ballistic missile submarines. Each Typhoon Class sub has 20 ICBMs. Each of the ICBMs carries 24 hypersonic glide vehicles that can be dispersed over an area of 75,00 square miles. Each Typhoon class sub can empty its entire Armanent in salvo (all at once). You are a complete idiot if you don't think those Typhoons are fully ready at a moment's notice.
Right back at you. Remind me how many died in WWII again as the world let Germany turn to monsters and never call bull shit?
Supposedly…or is it all bullshit. And do you think we don’t know where everyone of them are right now and are ready to engage?
I think it’s likely to the point of certainty that there’s currently an Ohio class attack sub tracking every one of those right now.
You clearly don't understand the half-life of radioactive fallout. Cobalt is the only radioactive residual that doesn't clear after a week. Cobalt is not used in atomic weapons (it could be but poisons everything for centuries)
The 186th infantry and 34th infantry US Army Regiment were at ground zero of Hiroshima 55 days after the bomb was dropped. In 1945 the US had 250,000 soldiers in Nagasaki and Hiroshima including ground zero in less than 2 months after the bombs were dropped.
After what we have seen the last month, I literally laugh at any of you scared of Russia.
yep. They basically robbed 80 percent of their military budget. Hell they can only get 60 percent of their traditional short range ballistics to work. The level of cost to maintain nuclear warhead rockets with still working bombs is so so so so much more money and likely was not done.
I brought this up 2 or 3 hundred pages ago, but I would like to hear from those saying that the US/NATO shouldn't get more involved because of the threat of nuclear weapons. What should we do if Russia were to attack Poland or the Baltic states? The threat of a nuclear attack is just as real in that scenario as it is in the current one. Should we risk nuclear Armageddon just because we have a treaty with some countries that don't really impact our existence any more or less than Ukraine? If you say we should come to the aid of other NATO countries in that scenario, then it's illogical to cite the nuclear threat as a reason to limit US/NATO actions in Ukraine. If you say we shouldn't, then the precedent that we're establishing is that any regime with nuclear weapons can act with impunity, and you can't be so naive as to believe that those other states aren't paying attention to the Western response.
Weird how he only quotes certain parts of posts and never answers the questions. Almost like Joe doesn’t like arguing in good faith.
Why don’t we then? What’s stopping us from ridding the world of Putin and Russian aggression if it’s that easy?
Russia attacking poland=Germany attacking France in 1940. If we would have isolated back then we would all be speaking German.
We would attack conventionally in that case, since it would be a defensive engagement and NATO is a defensive pact.
This isn’t that hard guys.
If you pay attention, I am saying nothing and not worth risking now - let’s see if they can get rid of him or he dies naturally or retreats. But we are quickly nearing a point of having to fight him if he continues making poor choices. There will be no other option.
And that 80% of Russia's "military budget" went to oligarch "toys".
So, at best, they have 20% of what anything thinks they have. And of that 20%, another fraction might be operational. And of that fraction, what additional small fraction would actually be deployed by a military that's seen multiple generals "offed" or "disappear"...
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
And if Putin, prior to attacking Poland, says “if NATO defends I will go nuclear”? He almost certainly would rattle the nuclear saber prior to an attack. Would you be ok taking that risk? Or would you bend over?
It has worked in Ukraine. We passed my red line for a Ukrainian NFZ using drones and shipping in Western MIGS. Do you have a red line?
WARSAW (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden was not calling for regime change in Russia when he said on Saturday that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power," a White House official said.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/reuter...-calling-for-regime-change-in-russia/47466938
Well there’s some added confusion.
Yes, my red line, just like NATOs red line has been since day one, is an attack on a NATO member.
Again, this isn’t that hard guys.
Back then, entering the nuked city was probably needed to evaluate damage and study what happens if you... you know... nuke a city.
Today we know what happens. What's the point of sending anyone there?
I don't think that's the same. If Russia wants to re-establish the influence of its former Soviet Republics and Eastern Bloc, it wouldn't have a great effect on the lives of Americans. Shouldn't we just let it slide so that we don't risk nuclear war?
Captain Rameus knows this I’m sure.
Got to get the passport first. Still closing out cases as well. I'm hoping I don't have to go. But willing.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the US/NATO should initiate a nuclear exchange. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It's not up to Russia to limit or dictate whether Ukraine can solicit help in defending its own territory and/or airspace from Russian aggression and crimes against humanity. To suggest that we shouldn't because Russia is threatening nukes is just as non-sensical as suggesting that we shouldn't come to the aid of other NATO nations, because the threat of nuclear weapons is just as great in that scenario as it is in the current one.
No, it is sensical because it’s a clear red line that Putin and everyone under him knows is our red line.
If he crossed that, then all bets are off.
By doing what we’re doing, we’re not risking nuclear war in the case he’s bluffing, which he almost certainly is. In the case he isn’t bluffing, we’re still not a direct “existential threat” he can point to for anyone under him to escalate this more.
Look, I get it. Nobody at this point doesn’t want to get involved. But the people with a far better knowledge of this than HROT have decided that at this point, it isn’t worth risking escalation. Take from that what you will.
With proof of travel plans they have a <5 day option. Show them your ticket to Warsaw and you’re there by Wednesday
Nope, not without family emergency. Sounds like you are an expert and want to go though to prevent nuclear war.
So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, your stance is that it WOULD be worth risking a nuclear exchange if Russia were to take action that compel us to respond per our NATO treaty obligations?
Biden's done good job on Ukraine so far, but this was just stupid.
Last edited:
My buddy must have forgot to tell me his wife had a family emergency in the Dominican Repulic a couple weeks ago when they had hers expedited to the 5 day.
Yes, I don’t think a single person has said they wouldn’t be in favor of getting involved with an attack on a nato member…
That’s our red line.
Plus you were sober the morning after you posted.
I admire your passion and love of country though. 🇺🇸
Jesus Christ. Should I start in b.s. post-menopausal statements about you.
Latest posts
-
-
-
For those of you going to Kinnick Friday night, what's your plan to stay warm?
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-