World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided

[Rambunctious]

Which countries will survive World War 3 - Google Search

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Not only has NATO openly been hostile to Russia, but it really is the old colonial imperialists who illegally started WWI.

A first strike by Russia would reduce any ability of the US to attack Russia, so is the only possible alternative if the Ukraine does not surrender soon.

WRONG

You are a foolish liar

NATO has never been hostile to russia and the balance of forces prove it is the other way around. NATO includes both sides of WWI you moron

Russia cannot make such a first strike and has no such capability

 

[Rigby5]

Notice just how well the blitz of Kiev did not go so well.

Russia will die if it messes with the US. No mercy, no forgiveness, only nuclear death.

Wrong.
The push towards Kiev was in ethnic Polish territory in the west, and was a fake.
The real thrust was always in the east, where the ethnic Russians lived and wanted to be liberated.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US, Russia would be the obvious winner.
First of all Russia has twice the nukes we have, and much larger as well.
Second is that whomever strikes first gets to wipe out much of the retaliatory capability.
Third is that Russia always hardened it infrastructure, so much of it would survive.
It is distributed, protected, and not dependent upon fragile microprocessors.
With just 3 airborne EMPs over the US, not a single TV, cellphone, utility, or anything else would still work.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The push towards Kiev was in ethnic Polish territory in the west, and was a fake.
The real thrust was always in the east, where the ethnic Russians lived and wanted to be liberated.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US, Russia would be the obvious winner.
First of all Russia has twice the nukes we have, and much larger as well.
Second is that whomever strikes first gets to wipe out much of the retaliatory capability.
Third is that Russia always hardened it infrastructure, so much of it would survive.
It is distributed, protected, and not dependent upon fragile microprocessors.
With just 3 airborne EMPs over the US, not a single TV, cellphone, utility, or anything else would still work.

WRONG
No one supported the illegal and unjustified invations by Putin.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US both sides would be destroyed and Russia has no chasnce of winniR

Russia DOES NOT habve twice the nukes that we do. Larger is irrelevant when ours are more accurate.

a first strike would not wipe out any retaliatory capability. Russia has never hardened it;s infrastructure

It is centralized and not at all protected from nuclear strike.

You are a a fool who knows nothing about nuclear war

 

[boevans]

Wrong.
The push towards Kiev was in ethnic Polish territory in the west, and was a fake.
The real thrust was always in the east, where the ethnic Russians lived and wanted to be liberated.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US, Russia would be the obvious winner.
First of all Russia has twice the nukes we have, and much larger as well.
Second is that whomever strikes first gets to wipe out much of the retaliatory capability.
Third is that Russia always hardened it infrastructure, so much of it would survive.
It is distributed, protected, and not dependent upon fragile microprocessors.
With just 3 airborne EMPs over the US, not a single TV, cellphone, utility, or anything else would still work.

Then you were falsifying earlier above about the need to take Kiev.

You cannot have it both ways.

Russia dies if it takes on NATO.

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG

You are a foolish liar

NATO has never been hostile to russia and the balance of forces prove it is the other way around. NATO includes both sides of WWI you moron

Russia cannot make such a first strike and has no such capability

That is just a lie.
The main point of NATO has always been to practice attacking Russia, and pretending Russian tanks would come pouring through the Fulda Gap.
NATO not only has always been hostile to Russia, but threatening Russia has always been the ONLY purpose and point of NATO.

Russia has never been hostile to anyone, has never made an offensive force like landing craft or carrier fleets, etc.

Russia can easily make a nuclear first strike however, and mostly survive the retaliation in tact.

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG
No one supported the illegal and unjustified invations by Putin.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US both sides would be destroyed and Russia has no chasnce of winniR

Russia DOES NOT habve twice the nukes that we do. Larger is irrelevant when ours are more accurate.

a first strike would not wipe out any retaliatory capability. Russia has never hardened it;s infrastructure

It is centralized and not at all protected from nuclear strike.

You are a a fool who knows nothing about nuclear war

I do not have to write a thing, since what you wrote everyone knows is totally wrong.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is just a lie.
The main point of NATO has always been to practice attacking Russia, and pretending Russian tanks would come pouring through the Fulda Gap.
NATO not only has always been hostile to Russia, but threatening Russia has always been the ONLY purpose and point of NATO.

Russia has never been hostile to anyone, has never made an offensive force like landing craft or carrier fleets, etc.

Russia can easily make a nuclear first strike however, and mostly survive the retaliation in tact.

No it is the absolute truth YOU are the one posting PROVEN LIES

NATO has never had the power to attack Rudssia and never procaticed doing so. The numbers absoolutely prove that fact aking you a filthy LIAR

Russia cannot survive a nuclear war

 

[Soupnazi630]

I do not have to write a thing, since what you wrote everyone knows is totally wrong.

No one knows that including you

You know what I stated is factual and you have been posting lies about Russia for years you disgusting little coward

 

[Rigby5]

Then you were falsifying earlier above about the need to take Kiev.

You cannot have it both ways.

Russia dies if it takes on NATO.

What I said is that the government in Kyiv has to go. But obviously Russia would want to first start by liberating the areas that are pro-Russian, so that they could then volunteer and aid the capture of Kyiv.

Russia can easily not only take on NATO, but totally wipe out western society.
We never considered how delicate microprocessors are and how easily they are destroyed with an EMP.

But Russia will not have to take on NATO.
No one likes or trusts the US after we committed crimes like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so no one will morn the loss of the US.

 

[Rigby5]

No it is the absolute truth YOU are the one posting PROVEN LIES

NATO has never had the power to attack Rudssia and never procaticed doing so. The numbers absoolutely prove that fact aking you a filthy LIAR

Russia cannot survive a nuclear war

Russia will survive any war, since it is large, distributed, hardened, protected, etc.
But Russia will take the least losses if it strikes first instead of letting the US install nukes in the Ukraine and launching them first.
So Russia has no choice at all.
Either Kyiv surrenders, or the US dies.

 

[Soupnazi630]

What I said is that the government in Kyiv has to go. But obviously Russia would want to first start by liberating the areas that are pro-Russian, so that they could then volunteer and aid the capture of Kyiv.

Russia can easily not only take on NATO, but totally wipe out western society.
We never considered how delicate microprocessors are and how easily they are destroyed with an EMP.

But Russia will not have to take on NATO.
No one likes or trusts the US after we committed crimes like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so no one will morn the loss of the US.

Russia cannot wipe out the US without bneing destroyed.

The use the same microprocessors and never hardened them against EMP

If they could easily take on NATO then NATO would not be a hostile force as you calim DUMBASS

They trust Russia less and our wars were LEGAL

 

[Soupnazi630]

Russia will survive any war, since it is large, distributed, hardened, protected, etc.
But Russia will take the least losses if it strikes first instead of letting the US install nukes in the Ukraine and launching them first.
So Russia has no choice at all.
Either Kyiv surrenders, or the US dies.

Russia would be desroyed they are centralized and have been since they were communist. Theynever hardened anything.


Russia will lose and run away humiliated

The US has no need or intention of installing nukes in Ukraine

 

[cnm]

World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided​

Hey, the author couldn't even define it, let alone work out how to avoid it.

 

[Rigby5]

No one knows that including you

You know what I stated is factual and you have been posting lies about Russia for years you disgusting little coward

You know you are lying.
The military in Kyiv would never have conducted the Maidan coup in 2014 unless the US had bribed then with cash and weapons promises.
The US does this all the time, like in 1953 when we bribed the Shah to end the democracy in Iran.
We did it again in Chile by bribing Pinochet with $1.5 billion.
We also bribed Sisi to out the elected president of Egypt, Morsi.
We illegally invaded Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

The US has done these illegal military coups all over the world, that the one in the Ukraine was no surprise.

 

[Rigby5]

Russia would be desroyed they are centralized and have been since they were communist. Theynever hardened anything.


Russia will lose and run away humiliated

The US has no need or intention of installing nukes in Ukraine

That is totally contrary to fact.
When Russia became Communist, the government ensure no state could ever rebel, by totally decentralizing all production.
There is no one production location for anything.
Everything is totally distributed.

Whether the US actually intends to install nukes in the Ukraine does not make any difference.
Russia certainly can not possibly trust the US, the most untrustworthy country in the world.
And if the US did not intend to install US nukes the Ukraine, then WHY did the US bribe the 2014 Maidan coup and get the Ukraine to try to prevent Russian use of Sevastopol?

 

[boevans]

What I said is that the government in Kyiv has to go. But obviously Russia would want to first start by liberating the areas that are pro-Russian, so that they could then volunteer and aid the capture of Kyiv.

Russia can easily not only take on NATO, but totally wipe out western society.
We never considered how delicate microprocessors are and how easily they are destroyed with an EMP.

But Russia will not have to take on NATO.
No one likes or trusts the US after we committed crimes like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so no one will morn the loss of the US.

Idiotic statement by Rigby. Russia is the Sick Man of EuroAsia. It starts a nuke war, it dies while EuroAmerica thrives.

 

[Rigby5]

Biden didn't bungle COVID, trump did. And he left 25 million infected people. Inflation was global Biden didn't cause it. We would have had supply chainissues with trump since trunp didn't have the good sense to invoke the Defense Manufacturing Act during the pandemic and couldn't even order enough vaccine after the vaccine was ready.

I disagree.
Covid has low mortality rates similar to flu, so the lowest death toll then is to achieve recovery herd immunity as quickly as possible.
Flattening the curve is the exact wrong thing to do, since it makes the epidemic last 10 times as long by ensuring easy hosts.
That kills 10 times the number of people.

If you do not understand this, go look up the same mistake make with the Spanish flu in 1918.
The Spanish flu is still around, but is insignificant now because we no longer try to "flatten the curve" with it. It is only when you "flatten the curve" that it can't end, lasts 10 times longer, and kills 10 times as many as it would have otherwise.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You know you are lying.
The military in Kyiv would never have conducted the Maidan coup in 2014 unless the US had bribed then with cash and weapons promises.
The US does this all the time, like in 1953 when we bribed the Shah to end the democracy in Iran.
We did it again in Chile by bribing Pinochet with $1.5 billion.
We also bribed Sisi to out the elected president of Egypt, Morsi.
We illegally invaded Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

The US has done these illegal military coups all over the world, that the one in the Ukraine was no surprise.

I know no such thing.

We BOTH know YOU are the one lying.

You have no evidence of any kind that the US conducted any coup there. You have no evidence whatsoever of bribery

There was no democracy in Iran

Panama grenada iraq and afghanistan were legal.

 

[IM2]

I disagree.
Covid has low mortality rates similar to flu, so the lowest death toll then is to achieve recovery herd immunity as quickly as possible.
Flattening the curve is the exact wrong thing to do, since it makes the epidemic last 10 times as long by ensuring easy hosts.
That kills 10 times the number of people.

If you do not understand this, go look up the same mistake make with the Spanish flu in 1918.
The Spanish flu is still around, but is insignificant now because we no longer try to "flatten the curve" with it. It is only when you "flatten the curve" that it can't end, lasts 10 times longer, and kills 10 times as many as it would have otherwise.

The numbers speak for themselves.