*Are We Going To War With Russia?*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Media wants it, Russia is doing Russian things, Breaking Shit up, tearing things down, is it our business to crush Russia?

Russia seizes Ukrainian border villages as its bombing campaign slows

A Ukrainian official says Russian forces have taken over four border villages in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region.

apnews.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Could we win a war agianst Russia?
2. Would the liberals want us too?
3. All these question answered right here on the, * Price Is Right! *
4. What will it cost if we dont, and what will it cost if we do?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

For some reason, the left has been salivating at going to war with Russia and bolstering China who is a greater threat to actual democracies.
The result with a war with Russia would absolutely guarantee large numbers of nuclear missiles fired at our nation.
Even though we would respond, the end result would be the complete destruction of much of mankind, especially in the US and Russia. In case you haven't noticed, our major cities don't have huge anti-nuke bunkers for the public, whereas Russia does have some.
Also, as we are presently a NATO nation, which I think is a mistake as it is going far-left in its politics. NATO would enter into it and nukes would be flying back and forth there as well. This would in all probability mean the complete eradication of humans and many other lifeforms. Insects would probably reign supreme until the Earth dried up.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I guess that could happen, we both have nukes, but if we went in with limited ground offenses, would not Putin fight with men on men?
2. Why does it always have to be full out nuclear war?
3. Cant fight with your hands?
4. I think Putin is aware that other countries have nukes, and he doesnt think he could win a nuclear exchange.
5. When so many nations have nukes, you should not lean on nukes for offensive arms.
6. But should we have troops on the ground, in Ukraine?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Dorian Mode]

Sorry bout that,

1. I guess that could happen, we both have nukes, but if we went in with limited ground offenses, would not Putin fight with men on men?
2. Why does it always have to be full out nuclear war?
3. Cant fight with your hands?
4. I think Putin is aware that other countries have nukes, and he doesnt think he could win a nuclear exchange.
5. When so many nations have nukes, you should not lean on nukes for offensive arms.
6. But should we have troops on the ground, in Ukraine?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The problem with nukes is the first to launch them has a small advantage, probably just the element of surprise and a little more time for preparation. That means in the case of war between the US and Russia both sides will be prompted to get that first strike advantage. Unfortunately the same thinking that got the US embroiled in Vietnam is occurring today. I think Russia has over 5000 nukes and even if the US can intercept 99% of them, 50 will strike the US. I'm sure America can't intercept even 90%. And even if somehow America "wins" this confrontation, it will be left extremely vulnerable to China. I hope there are better plans floating around Trump's head, because direct confrontation with Russia has to be the absolute last resort.

 

[kyzr]

1. I guess that could happen, we both have nukes, but if we went in with limited ground offenses, would not Putin fight with men on men?
2. Why does it always have to be full out nuclear war?
3. Cant fight with your hands?
4. I think Putin is aware that other countries have nukes, and he doesn't think he could win a nuclear exchange.
5. When so many nations have nukes, you should not lean on nukes for offensive arms.
6. But should we have troops on the ground, in Ukraine?
Regards, SirJamesofTexas

I have been posting in the military section with Zavulon who is a Russian, and knows what propaganda Putin's media is telling the Russian people. It is that Russia's new hyper-sonic Oreshnik missile can wipe out America's nuclear response with a first strike and then Russia would hold America hostage until we gave Russia Alaska and California.

So your #4 looks wrong.

1. Who is "we"? I assume you mean NATO? Russia already threatened nuclear war to prevent NATO expansion.
2. Because Russia says they will launch. Is Putin crazy enough to launch? Trump just called him crazy.
3. Not against NATO, but Russian soldiers are good in a knife fight if you haven't seen the video.
4. Probably wrong.
5. Probably wrong.
6. Fuck no.

 

[luiza]

Get your shirt on Russia for a quick and decisive win,.

Bankrupt US needs at least a decade and some warm up wars before being ready to enter the Big Boys League.

After nearly a century of bad losses the US lacks confidence and decent weapons .
A practise match with Mexico has merit .

 

[22lcidw]

For some reason, the left has been salivating at going to war with Russia and bolstering China who is a greater threat to actual democracies.
The result with a war with Russia would absolutely guarantee large numbers of nuclear missiles fired at our nation.
Even though we would respond, the end result would be the complete destruction of much of mankind, especially in the US and Russia. In case you haven't noticed, our major cities don't have huge anti-nuke bunkers for the public, whereas Russia does have some.
Also, as we are presently a NATO nation, which I think is a mistake as it is going far-left in its politics. NATO would enter into it and nukes would be flying back and forth there as well. This would in all probability mean the complete eradication of humans and many other lifeforms. Insects would probably reign supreme until the Earth dried up.

Anyone with gripes or grievances against others would get even though on those who oppressed or screwed with them. Even if they perish. In a nuclear war, most likely if you saw the Western Hemisphere from space, most of the nuclear detonations would be inside the United States.

 

[Blaster]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Media wants it, Russia is doing Russian things, Breaking Shit up, tearing things down, is it our business to crush Russia?

Russia seizes Ukrainian border villages as its bombing campaign slows

A Ukrainian official says Russian forces have taken over four border villages in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region.

apnews.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The Russian army is weak but they do have nukes.

 

[Dorian Mode]

The Russian army is weak but they do have nukes.

Can we count on Russia to lose a ground war, give up their natural resources, be forever punished by NATO and never use their nukes? My guess is Russia will not fight nice. We must remember, the Nazis were horrified with how brutal the Russians were in WWII and became scared shitless to encounter them. Now that they have nukes aimed at all the major cities of NATO, I wouldn't bank on them fighting nice.

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Media wants it, Russia is doing Russian things, Breaking Shit up, tearing things down, is it our business to crush Russia?

Russia seizes Ukrainian border villages as its bombing campaign slows

A Ukrainian official says Russian forces have taken over four border villages in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region.

apnews.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

We let the Nazis slide and you saw how that turned out.

 

[Moonglow]

The Russian army is weak but they do have nukes.

Use only fucks up them doing what they wanted, occupying Ukraine.

 

[Dorian Mode]

Get your shirt on Russia for a quick and decisive win,.

Bankrupt US needs at least a decade and some warm up wars before being ready to enter the Big Boys League.

After nearly a century of bad losses the US lacks confidence and decent weapons .
A practise match with Mexico has merit .

I wouldn't bet on winning a war with Mexico either. 20 years in Afghanistan, over 2 trillion USD spent, and they couldn't beat an army of goat herders. War is no longer a viable option in geopolitics. America is going to have to think of smarter ways to preserve its standing on the geopolitical stage.

 

[Independent thinker]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Media wants it, Russia is doing Russian things, Breaking Shit up, tearing things down, is it our business to crush Russia?

Russia seizes Ukrainian border villages as its bombing campaign slows

A Ukrainian official says Russian forces have taken over four border villages in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region.

apnews.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

There is no such thing as a war against Russia without nukes, and that includes fighting China, North Korea, and Iran.

 

[imawhosure]

Sorry bout that,

1. I guess that could happen, we both have nukes, but if we went in with limited ground offenses, would not Putin fight with men on men?
2. Why does it always have to be full out nuclear war?
3. Cant fight with your hands?
4. I think Putin is aware that other countries have nukes, and he doesnt think he could win a nuclear exchange.
5. When so many nations have nukes, you should not lean on nukes for offensive arms.
6. But should we have troops on the ground, in Ukraine?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It is highly unlikely anyone but a dictator like those in the Middle East or Kim, is going to use nukes unless their country is actually invaded. NATO could do whatever it so desires short of Nukes to push Putin out of Ukraine, and as long as they didn't cross the threshold of Russian land and stopped at the borders, war is over.

From logic 101----------> ......we invade Mexico, and push in 200 mls. Mexico pushes back, and forces us back to the border. We have not used Nukes on Mexico, because what good is the land we tried to get if we had? But now, they threaten OUR lands. Cross over into Texas or California, (well, maybe not California, we might be smart to give it to them, lol) and BOOM, Mexico City no longer exists. They do not retreat BACK across their borders, BOOM, another city up in smoke, etc.

 

[kyzr]

It is highly unlikely anyone but a dictator like those in the Middle East or Kim, is going to use nukes unless their country is actually invaded. NATO could do whatever it so desires short of Nukes to push Putin out of Ukraine, and as long as they didn't cross the threshold of Russian land and stopped at the borders, war is over.

You are gambling with civilization with that "assumption". Putin already said things like "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Medvedev just warned that nukes are on the table.

From logic 101----------> ......we invade Mexico, and push in 200 mi. Mexico pushes back, and forces us back to the border.

NFW they push us back.

We have not used Nukes on Mexico, because what good is the land we tried to get if we had? But now, they threaten OUR lands. Cross over into Texas or California, (well, maybe not California, we might be smart to give it to them, lol) and BOOM, Mexico City no longer exists. They do not retreat BACK across their borders, BOOM, another city up in smoke, etc.

Your "logic-101" missed the fact that Mexico also has nukes and hyper-sonic delivery systems. Think harder.

 

[Dorian Mode]

There is no such thing as a war against Russia without nukes, and that includes fighting China, North Korea, and Iran.

Not only China, North Korea and Iran, America has many enemies that would side with China and Russia. Hell, Cuba is working with China to build up strategic military surveillance and other military options should America and China go to war. How many Central American and South American countries has the US exploited that would gladly help America's enemies in a war? America can no longer rule the world with military threats, it's time to find a peaceful way to lead the world.

 

[kyzr]

Not only China, North Korea and Iran, America has many enemies that would side with China and Russia. Hell, Cuba is working with China to build up strategic military surveillance and other military options should America and China go to war. How many Central American and South American countries has the US exploited that would gladly help America's enemies in a war? America can no longer drive the world with military threats, it's time to find a peaceful way to lead the world.

A quick Chinese list includes Venezuela, BRIC Brazil, and Cuba. The US is losing South America.
India has Chile, except for Chinese cars.

China paves path for South America's break from US - Asia Times

South America’s largest trading bloc, Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay), recently inked a comprehensive free trade deal with the

asiatimes.com

 

[imawhosure]

You are gambling with civilization with that "assumption". Putin already said things like "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Medvedev just warned that nukes are on the table.

NFW they push us back.

Your "logic-101" missed the fact that Mexico also has nukes and hyper-sonic delivery systems. Think harder.

Then, give Putin whatever he wants, end of story. No more debate. Happy now!

 

[airplanemechanic]

The problem with nukes is the first to launch them has a small advantage, probably just the element of surprise and a little more time for preparation. That means in the case of war between the US and Russia both sides will be prompted to get that first strike advantage. Unfortunately the same thinking that got the US embroiled in Vietnam is occurring today. I think Russia has over 5000 nukes and even if the US can intercept 99% of them, 50 will strike the US. I'm sure America can't intercept even 90%. And even if somehow America "wins" this confrontation, it will be left extremely vulnerable to China. I hope there are better plans floating around Trump's head, because direct confrontation with Russia has to be the absolute last resort.

Russia has about 1700 deployable nuclear weapons. The rest would have to be delivered by bombers which would never get close enough to harm us. We have no idea how many of these weapons would actually work, since Russian defectors have informed us that their nuclear arsenal is many decades old and in dire need of repair.