ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

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.

Putin doesn't, for a second, think that the US and Old NATO will actually fight to defend New NATO which is why he will eventually attack some or all of those countries. He knows the same fear gripped people who have been appeasing him for years will fall to their knees once again.
 
Putin doesn't, for a second, think that the US and Old NATO will actually fight to defend New NATO which is why he will eventually attack some or all of those countries. He knows the same fear gripped people who have been appeasing him for years will fall to their knees once again.
If so I don’t think it would be Poland. Maybe a smaller country.
 
Putin doesn't, for a second, think that the US and Old NATO will actually fight to defend New NATO which is why he will eventually attack some or all of those countries. He knows the same fear gripped people who have been appeasing him for years will fall to their knees once again.
I hope you let the US and NATO know.
 
Weird how he only quotes certain parts of posts and never answers the questions. Almost like Joe doesn’t like arguing in good faith.
I’m just wondering how a guy who took the deaths during the pandemic so seriously can be so flippant about Nuclear weapons….boggles the mind. One detonated over major US city could equal that amount in a instant….
 
I’m just wondering how a guy took the deaths during the pandemic so seriously can be so flippant about Nuclear weapons….boggles the mind. One detonated over major US city could equal that amount in a instant….
Well, he and some other posters have the real intel on Russian capabilities, unlike our government.
 
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.
Fair enough. My viewpoint is that there's no reason for us to take our treaty obligations any more seriously than ethical/moral obligations to respond to the current crisis. I don't think that there's evidence of a greater nuclear threat in either scenario, so I think that we should not rule out providing any type of military aid/action requested by Ukraine in its territory and/or airspace. The fact that a there is a nonzero possibility of a nuclear exchange should not be posed as in justifying action (or lack thereof) in Ukraine versus an attack on a NATO ally.
 
Fair enough. My viewpoint is that there's no reason for us to take our treaty obligations any more seriously than ethical/moral obligations to respond to the current crisis. I don't think that there's evidence of a greater nuclear threat in either scenario, so I think that we should not rule out providing any type of military aid/action requested by Ukraine in its territory and/or airspace. The fact that a there is a nonzero possibility of a nuclear exchange should not be posed as in justifying action (or lack thereof) in Ukraine versus an attack on a NATO ally.
And that’s a fair point to which you’re entitled to. My problem is with our resident intel experts saying there’s no chance this escalates in a bad way or that there’s 0% chance Russian nukes work because there’s rampant corruption and a lot of their land equipment is shit.
 
And that’s a fair point to which you’re entitled to. My problem is with our resident intel experts saying there’s no chance this escalates in a bad way or that there’s 0% chance Russian nukes work because there’s rampant corruption and a lot of their land equipment is shit.
I agree that such an assessment goes well beyond what we, and perhaps even our intelligence community, can possibly know. I think that the only thing we can say with regard to Russian nuclear weapons is, based on the general state of their military compared to even a few weeks ago, it seems less likely that their nuclear arsenal has been well maintained than I would have previously thought. Even so, there would be an enormous difference between a 0% and even 1% level of Russian nuclear readiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
I would rather hear someone say what they feel than some bull shit jumbo. The fact Putie is a butcher and baby killer should be said loud and often by everyone, and heard in Moscow and all of Russia.

did you take my comment to mean otherwise?
 
Notice which posters it tends to be - the permanently aggrieved and frightened.
As much as Russia wants to make this a civil war, Ukraine knows it is a fight for life and death and their freedom. What army is afraid of the other army and goes after hospitals, schools, churches, kids and old people, RUSSIA and Putie. And it must be told to the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Putin doesn't, for a second, think that the US and Old NATO will actually fight to defend New NATO which is why he will eventually attack some or all of those countries. He knows the same fear gripped people who have been appeasing him for years will fall to their knees once again.
Then eventually you'll get the war you want.
In the meantime, his army is getting torn to pieces and we're learning more about the next army to build to make our gap with the Russians even larger than it already is.
 
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.
I think one would be enough, but I doubt they can put one at sea at any time, and that probably is riddled with problems.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT