Are you fears of Russia and China nuking America diminished now?

[Correll]

Of course, it's a plain lie. Even America (with all that demonstrative pacifism) knew that nuclear war is survivable and winnable.
Nuclear deterrence is effective only because it is believable. And it is believable only because the possible war is survivable and winnable.
Everything else is also a total crap.

Would you, if your nation was facing certain destruction, blow it all up to prevent your enemies from enjoying the fruits of conquest?

 

[Hafar1014]

Would you, if your nation was facing certain destruction, blow it all up to prevent your enemies from enjoying the fruits of conquest?

Nuclear war is not winnable and thats why there hasnt been a world war. We have micro wars with proxies.

 

[Zavulon]

Would you, if your nation was facing certain destruction, blow it all up to prevent your enemies from enjoying the fruits of conquest?

Yes, of course. Why not?

 

[Zavulon]

Nuclear war is not winnable and thats why there hasnt been a world war. We have micro wars with proxies.

First of all, it all depends on the definition of terms "victory" and "nuclear war". You know, the USA used nuclear weapons in WWII, and won it. In most of realistic scenarios of WWIII victory may be achieved (at least by one side), with terrible, but acceptable losses.

We are fighting "microwars with proxies" during interbella, between bigger wars, when we have certain set of rules, all sides are agree with. When the rules are finished, situation usually escalate to higher levels of violence until another "world war" and the victors of this war write new rules and establish new world order. That is exactly what is happening now. Post-WWII world order was finished by US unprovoked and illegitimate aggressions against Serbia and Iraq (and it was officially declared by the USA as "No more Munich, no more Yalta") and we came to pre-WWIII order. After WWIII there will be new set of rules and players.

 

[shockedcanadian]

First of all, it all depends on the definition of terms "victory" and "nuclear war". You know, the USA used nuclear weapons in WWII, and won it. In most of realistic scenarios of WWIII victory may be achieved (at least by one side), with terrible, but acceptable losses.

We are fighting "microwars with proxies" during interbella, between bigger wars, when we have certain set of rules, all sides are agree with. When the rules are finished, situation usually escalate to higher levels of violence until another "world war" and the victors of this war write new rules and establish new world order. That is exactly what is happening now. Post-WWII world order was finished by US unprovoked and illegitimate aggressions against Serbia and Iraq (and it was officially declared by the USA as "No more Munich, no more Yalta") and we came to pre-WWIII order. After WWIII there will be new set of rules and players.

A true nuclear war would end human life on earth except for a few.pockets. Unless one rejects the hign probability of a nuclear winter as predicted by.scientists in multiple countries.

 

[Zavulon]

A true nuclear war would end human life on earth except for a few.pockets.

Why? Let's play more or less realistic scenario. Country A attacks country's B nuclear forces and destroy significant part of them. Then, country A suggest to country B acceptable terms of peace (like just losing few provinces) if country B refuse to retaliate. Country B accept this generous offer, lose few provinces, but continue to exist as a nuclear power.
A massive counter-force strike is a true nuclear war, isn't it?

Unless one rejects the hign probability of a nuclear winter as predicted by.scientists in multiple countries.

Of course, any sane person rejects the nuclear winter conception as an anti-scientific nonsense based on false assumptions:

1. Nuclear war is mostly exchange of nuclear blasts in the cities. It's lie. Both Russia and America prefer to save their citizens to murder civilians of the adversary. Therefore the first strike is counter-force in the both side strategies.
2. Nuclear bursts in the cities will cause massive fires. It's lie. For most air conditions and yields of nukes, radius of demolition is larger than the radius of wood ignition. There will be no "city fires" (as it was in Hiroshima or Tokyo). There will be "soldering in debris".
3. Numerous city fires unite in a super-firestorm. It's lie. In the modern cities with their concrete buildings and wide streets small fires doesn't really spread and unite. You need dense wooden building to have a firestorm.
4. Super-firestorm burn all organic in ash and sooth and send it stratosphere. Its lie. Super-firestorms means high temperature and it means that all organic is burning to CO_2 and H_2O. No ash nor sooth.
5. Ash cause decreasing of temperature. Its lie. The guys simply ignore greenhouse effects of CO_2 and water vapour. And there will be a lot of water vapour and CO_2.
6. The lack of harvest cause starvation. Only if you don't reserves and can't take food from someone else. Winter (nuclear or natural, say, volcanic) doesn't kill people directly. Unpreparedness do. Like, you know, in 1600 volcanic eruption in Peru caused in Russia three "years without summer" (and without harvest). Yes, it caused the fall of Godunov's dynasty, and started "the time of troubles", but most of human losses (30% of Russian population) were caused not by starvation per se, but mostly by another regular European (this time basically Polish) invasion. "The Time of troubles" was ended in 1612, and since then Russian Tzars prefer to be prepared to such things (and keep enough of food supplies for their people).

 

[shockedcanadian]

Why? Let's play more or less realistic scenario. Country A attacks country's B nuclear forces and destroy significant part of them. Then, country A suggest to country B acceptable terms of peace (like just losing few provinces) if country B refuse to retaliate. Country B accept this generous offer, lose few provinces, but continue to exist as a nuclear power.
A massive counter-force strike is a true nuclear war, isn't it?


Of course, any sane person rejects the nuclear winter conception as an anti-scientific nonsense based on false assumptions:

1. Nuclear war is mostly exchange of nuclear blasts in the cities. It's lie. Both Russia and America prefer to save their citizens to murder civilians of the adversary. Therefore the first strike is counter-force in the both side strategies.
2. Nuclear bursts in the cities will cause massive fires. It's lie. For most air conditions and yields of nukes, radius of demolition is larger than the radius of wood ignition. There will be no "city fires" (as it was in Hiroshima or Tokyo). There will be "soldering in debris".
3. Numerous city fires unite in a super-firestorm. It's lie. In the modern cities with their concrete buildings and wide streets small fires doesn't really spread and unite. You need dense wooden building to have a firestorm.
4. Super-firestorm burn all organic in ash and sooth and send it stratosphere. Its lie. Super-firestorms means high temperature and it means that all organic is burning to CO_2 and H_2O. No ash nor sooth.
5. Ash cause decreasing of temperature. Its lie. The guys simply ignore greenhouse effects of CO_2 and water vapour. And there will be a lot of water vapour and CO_2.
6. The lack of harvest cause starvation. Only if you don't reserves and can't take food from someone else. Winter (nuclear or natural, say, volcanic) doesn't kill people directly. Unpreparedness do. Like, you know, in 1600 volcanic eruption in Peru caused in Russia three "years without summer" (and without harvest). Yes, it caused the fall of Godunov's dynasty, and started "the time of troubles", but most of human losses (30% of Russian population) were caused not by starvation per se, but mostly by another European (basically Polish) invasion. "The Time of troubles" was ended in 1612, and since then Russian Tzars prefer to be prepared to such things (and keep enough of food supplies for their people).

Your Russian A.I needs a software update.

 

[Zavulon]

Your Russian A.I needs a software update.

What kind of update do you suggest? That freaking environmentalistic cult? C'mon, you can't be serious.

 

[Correll]

Yes, of course. Why not?

THAT is why MAD worked, even though nuclear war is not winnable.

It is silly of you to pretend otherwise.


(to be clear, I would also)

 

[Deadstick]

Yes, of course. Why not?

That is what the Soviets did after Barbarossa as they had to retreat initially.

 

[Zavulon]

THAT is why MAD worked, even though nuclear war is not winnable.

It is silly of you to pretend otherwise.


(to be clear, I would also)

Nuclear war is winnable as any other war. If we are not talking about "decolonisation of Northern America" and our goals are more limited, to, say, forcing the USA out of Ukraine and Venezuela, then, of course, nuclear attack against US nuclear forces might be pretty useful.

 

[Zavulon]

That is what the Soviets did after Barbarossa as they had to retreat initially.

Retreating doesn't necessarily mean surrender. Sometimes it's the only way to victory. Don't you remember that story about Horatii and Curiatii, or Fabian strategy, or Russians, defeating Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII and Sigismund II, or Vietnamese defeating French and American occupants.

 

[Hafar1014]

Nuclear war is winnable as any other war. If we are not talking about "decolonisation of Northern America" and our goals are more limited, to, say, forcing the USA out of Ukraine and Venezuela, then, of course, nuclear attack against US nuclear forces might be pretty useful.

Nuclear war cannot be won. Thats why there is no war between super powers

 

[Correll]

Nuclear war is winnable as any other war. If we are not talking about "decolonisation of Northern America" and our goals are more limited, to, say, forcing the USA out of Ukraine and Venezuela, then, of course, nuclear attack against US nuclear forces might be pretty useful.

Russians are NOT going to press the button.

One of your few virtues, is you are NOT reckless.

 

[Zavulon]

Russians are NOT going to press the button.

There are a lot of buttons and triggers. And some of them we are definitely going to press. Actually, some of them are practically pressed.

One of your few virtues, is you are NOT reckless.

Really? Sometimes playing Russian roulette isn't "reckless". Sometimes it is the only chance to win and survive. Actually, one can't win a war without taking some risks.

And are you reckless? If, say, somebody (may be, Venezuela) evaporated Chicago, will you commit mass murder-suicide?

 

[Hafar1014]

There are a lot of buttons and triggers. And some of them we are definitely going to press. Actually, some of them are practically pressed.


Really? Sometimes playing Russian roulette isn't "reckless". Sometimes it is the only chance to win and survive. Actually, one can't win a war without taking some risks.

And are you reckless? If, say, somebody (may be, Venezuela) evaporated Chicago, will you commit mass murder-suicide?

Youre clueless

 

[Correll]

There are a lot of buttons and triggers. And some of them we are definitely going to press. Actually, some of them are practically pressed.

YOu won't press the big one. When the time comes, you will realize that it is just suicide.

You will take the L, and try to muddle though the crap situation you have created for yourself.

ENDURANCE, is one of the other few virtues that you seem to have.

Really? Sometimes playing Russian roulette isn't "reckless". Sometimes it is the only chance to win and survive. Actually, one can't win a war without taking some risks.

WINNING, is not on the table. Even if you rolled over ukraine tomorrow, that would still not be a win.

You have pissed away the last sizable generation of young men, you will have in the foreseeable future.

That is a massive and even possibly nation ending L.

And are you reckless? If, say, somebody (may be, Venezuela) evaporated Chicago, will you commit mass murder-suicide?

I already said YES. I volunteered that before you even asked. When I asked YOU the question.

 

[Correll]

Youre clueless

I suspect he is not free to answer honestly or seriously.

Even if he wanted to.

 

[Zavulon]

Youre clueless

Ok. Let's play a game about Minimal Deterrence. America captured Maduro and try to subjugate Venezuela by military force. Señora Rodriguez openly and officially declared war on the USA. As her first step in this war she declared elimination of Chicago. And she had it eliminated it by a pre-delivered nuclear charge up to 10 Mt. Her demands are simple and reasonable. She wants Maduro back and she wants end of US blocade and end of all US-hostilities against all Latino American countries.

If you refuse her quite legal, reasonable and modest demands she told she will destroy Denver in next six hours.

So, the USA have some options:
1. Accept the defeat and leave Latin America alone. - Venezuela won, America survived.
2. Attack Venezuela by nukes and have, say, five more big cities destroyed - America won in a local war but suffer significant damage, Russia and China prevail in post-war peace.
3. Attack simultaneously the whole world in something like "Samson protocol" (countervalue attack without attempt of selfprotection). The whole world suffer significant but survivable damage, America is eliminated.

And as neither Ukraine, nor Venezuela are vital for the USA, my bet is that the USA won't commit suicide.

 

[Hafar1014]

Ok. Let's play a game about Minimal Deterrence. America captured Maduro and try to subjugate Venezuela by military force. Señora Rodriguez openly and officially declared war on the USA. As her first step in this war she declared elimination of Chicago. And she had it eliminated it by a pre-delivered nuclear charge up to 10 Mt. Her demands are simple and reasonable. She wants Maduro back and she wants end of US blocade and end of all US-hostilities against all Latino American countries.

If you refuse her quite legal, reasonable and modest demands she told she will destroy Denver in next six hours.

So, the USA have some options:
1. Accept the defeat and leave Latin America alone. - Venezuela won, America survived.
2. Attack Venezuela by nukes and have, say, five more big cities destroyed - America won in a local war but suffer significant damage, Russia and China prevail in post-war peace.
3. Attack simultaneously the whole world in something like "Samson protocol" (countervalue attack without attempt of selfprotection). The whole world suffer significant but survivable damage, America is eliminated.

And as neither Ukraine, nor Venezuela are vital for the USA, my bet is that the USA won't commit suicide.

You really are clueless.
Venezuela is the home base for Russia China Cuba Iran Hamas and Hezbollah. They use their support to spread communism in Central and South America and to incite chaos in America. All funded by drug sales.
Do you think this should be stopped ?

By removing a communist tyrant who oppresses his people and spreads chaos death and destruction we have created victory for freedom. In your little mind is OK to ignore this.
You dont have a clue