At what point the USA will launch nukes?

[Zavulon]

Look what a purposely released io engineered virus caused. A nuclear exchange will destroy modern civilization. Yet local civilizations may prosper as compared to what exists if not affected from post detonation radiation.

Even if so, if you have a choice: to be totally genocided by "Indians" or to destroy world's civilisation, but survive as a nation - what would you choose?

 

[Zavulon]

Look what a purposely released io engineered virus caused. A nuclear exchange will destroy modern civilization. Yet local civilizations may prosper as compared to what exists if not affected from post detonation radiation.

But in our game American Generals believe that in the case of the first, coordinated American attack against Russia's and China's nuclear forces their retaliation strike won't be able to kill more than 20 mln of Americans (roughly 10% of the population on the Earth-2).

 

[Zavulon]

Nice. Seems that this game is becoming a bit more than a pure intellectual exercise.

 

[kyzr]

Nice. Seems that this game is becoming a bit more than a pure intellectual exercise.
View attachment 1063749

Pure fantasy. Hope you enjoy self-delusion.

Panama and the canal is a strategic necessity for the US.

How does that fit your fantasy?

 

[Zavulon]

Pure fantasy. Hope you enjoy self-delusion.

It is fantasy and intellectual exercise now. But who knows, what will happen tomorrow.

Panama and the canal is a strategic necessity for the US.

How does that fit your fantasy?

Its OK. We can discuss it either and play a little game. Lets imagine, that Russia and China supported Revolution of Dignity in Panama and other LA countries and preparing to send there their forces. You annexed Panama, but other LA countries (including Cuba, Mexico, Venezuella, Columbia and others) backed by the EU, Russia and China didn't recognised it and started a war against you.
At what point will you start using tactical nukes against Latinoamericans and in what circumstances will you think about strategic counter-force attack against Russia, China and France?

 

[AZrailwhale]

It is fantasy and intellectual exercise now. But who knows, what will happen tomorrow.

Its OK. We can discuss it either and play a little game. Lets imagine, that Russia and China supported Revolution of Dignity in Panama and other LA countries and preparing to send there their forces. You annexed Panama, but other LA countries (including Cuba, Mexico, Venezuella, Columbia and others) backed by the EU, Russia and China didn't recognised it and started a war against you.
At what point will you start using tactical nukes against Latinoamericans and in what circumstances will you think about strategic counter-force attack against Russia, China and France?

All you can do is imagine. We have concrete examples of Russia invading and conquering its neighbors.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If anybody ever pops off a nuke, it'll be Israel.

There's no doubt in my mind about that.

 

[kyzr]

Its OK. We can discuss it either and play a little game. Lets imagine, that Russia and China supported Revolution of Dignity in Panama and other LA countries and preparing to send there their forces. You annexed Panama, but other LA countries (including Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and others) backed by the EU, Russia and China didn't recognized it and started a war against you.
At what point will you start using tactical nukes against Latin Americans and in what circumstances will you think about strategic counter-force attack against Russia, China and France?

1. If Russia and China reinforced Panama that would totally justify a US intervention according to the terms of the Panama Canal agreement. That would trigger an immediate response in force.

2. No other countries in Latin America or South America would dare interfere. No EU countries would oppose a NATO member. The US would control the Panama Canal just like like before Jimmy Carter gave it away.

3. The US would never use tactical nukes. No need. No need to attack Russia or China in a local dispute over the canal. (France is our NATO ally)

So your world view of the Americas needs some adjustment. We have the Monroe Doctrine, which basically tells other countries to keep out of the Americas.

 

[Zavulon]

1. If Russia and China reinforced Panama that would totally justify a US intervention according to the terms of the Panama Canal agreement. That would trigger an immediate response in force.

Ok.

2. No other countries in Latin America or South America would dare interfere.

What if they dare?

No EU countries would oppose a NATO member.

Who knows?

The US would control the Panama Canal just like like before Jimmy Carter gave it away.

May be. May be not. Depends on how decisive you are.

3. The US would never use tactical nukes. No need. No need to attack Russia or China in a local dispute over the canal. (France is our NATO ally)

What if you face the choice: 1) Conventional defeat and losing Panama channel 2) nuclear victory in the regional local war (after nuking some military sites in Cuba, Venezuela, Columbia and Mexico?

So your world view of the Americas needs some adjustment. We have the Monroe Doctrine, which basically tells other countries to keep out of the Americas.

Yes. And what if, the other countries ignored that doctrine of yours (as it happened with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua)?

 

[Zavulon]

All you can do is imagine. We have concrete examples of Russia invading and conquering its neighbors.

Actually, it were USA who invaded and conquered 2/3 of Mexico. Say nothing about numerous invasions in the whole world.

 

[Mushroom]

If Russia and China reinforced Panama that would totally justify a US intervention according to the terms of the Panama Canal agreement. That would trigger an immediate response in force.

Most specifically, this is covered in two treaties. Known collectively as the "Torrijos-Carter Treaties", they are "The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal", and "The Panama Canal Treaty".

Of the two, the Panama Canal Treaty covered the period from 1977 until the turnover of the canal in 1999. So the one that this clearly applies to is the "Neutrality Treaty", and Article V is quite clear.

After the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory.

https://pancanal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/neutrality-treaty.pdf

So yes, if other nations tried to maintain a military presence in Panama the US would indeed respond with military force. Myself, I admit I have long found treaties quite interesting as they will cover a lot of things people simply have no idea about. Probably one reason I so often find myself quoting treaties in here, as they can quickly cut through the garbage propaganda that others try to spew.

Like the large number that completely ignore even the presence of the "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation". Something that Russia clearly violated in 2014 when it invaded and annexed Crimea.

 

[Zavulon]

Most specifically, this is covered in two treaties. Known collectively as the "Torrijos-Carter Treaties", they are "The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal", and "The Panama Canal Treaty".

Of the two, the Panama Canal Treaty covered the period from 1977 until the turnover of the canal in 1999. So the one that this clearly applies to is the "Neutrality Treaty", and Article V is quite clear.

https://pancanal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/neutrality-treaty.pdf

So yes, if other nations tried to maintain a military presence in Panama the US would indeed respond with military force. Myself, I admit I have long found treaties quite interesting as they will cover a lot of things people simply have no idea about. Probably one reason I so often find myself quoting treaties in here, as they can quickly cut through the garbage propaganda that others try to spew.

Like the large number that completely ignore even the presence of the "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation". Something that Russia clearly violated in 2014 when it invaded and annexed Crimea.

The problem with treaties is that the counties sometimes ignore, violate or cancel them. So, if there is "Revolution of Dignity" in Panama and treaties are cancelled (as it was with Ukraine, in which Junta had violated Ukrainian Constitution many times), and Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia invaded (after the invitation of the new Panama's Junta), backed by Russia and China - it will be up to the USA decide - are they ready to fight a limited operation, a local conventional war, regional nuclear war or all-out nuclear war.

 

[22lcidw]

But in our game American Generals believe that in the case of the first, coordinated American attack against Russia's and China's nuclear forces their retaliation strike won't be able to kill more than 20 mln of Americans (roughly 10% of the population on the Earth-2).

Strong nations in decline do not like to go out easily. The Western Hemisphere for all of its flaws has had more peace than parts of the rest of the planet.

 

[kyzr]

What if they dare?

They would be slaughtered by US forces. They aren't that stupid.

Who knows?

NATO members are united, and have been since WW2.

May be. May be not. Depends on how decisive you are.

Trump is decisive. Pete Hegseth is a combat veteran, he knows how to run the military, and which generals to keep, and which to dismiss.

What if you face the choice: 1) Conventional defeat and losing Panama channel 2) nuclear victory in the regional local war (after nuking some military sites in Cuba, Venezuela, Columbia and Mexico?

There is no military on the planet that can defeat the US in a local conventional war. We might consider capturing Cuba and/or Venezuela if they opposed the US takeover of the canal. We would not use nuclear, no need to make places radioactive and have refugees flood into the US.

Yes. And what if, the other countries ignored that doctrine of yours (as it happened with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua)?

If China tries to take control of Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua for military purposes the US response would depend upon who is president. A weak president like Biden and his Leftist advisors would allow it. A strong president, like Trump would not allow it.

 

[kyzr]

The problem with treaties is that the counties sometimes ignore, violate or cancel them. So, if there is "Revolution of Dignity" in Panama and treaties are cancelled (as it was with Ukraine, in which Junta had violated Ukrainian Constitution many times), and Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia invaded (after the invitation of the new Panama's Junta), backed by Russia and China - it will be up to the USA decide - are they ready to fight a limited operation, a local conventional war, regional nuclear war or all-out nuclear war.

You have no clue what you are saying about this area.
1. Mexico's military is busy fighting drug cartels
2. Venezuela has no military, neither does Cuba or Columbia
3. China knows better than to oppose the US military in Panama, they are better at long term subversion than projecting military force.

Nuclear is off the table, no need.

 

[Zavulon]

They would be slaughtered by US forces. They aren't that stupid.

May be. May be not.

NATO members are united, and have been since WW2.

France already said, that they won't tolerate American attempts to retake Panama channel.

Trump is decisive. Pete Hegseth is a combat veteran, he knows how to run the military, and which generals to keep, and which to dismiss.

Is he decisive enough to use nukes?

There is no military on the planet that can defeat the US in a local conventional war.

Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, even Somali. Latam alliance doesn't even need to keep control over the channel. Degrading its work by raids and by time to time disturbing attacks is good enough.

We might consider capturing Cuba and/or Venezuela if they opposed the US takeover of the canal. We would not use nuclear, no need to make places radioactive and have refugees flood into the US.

Without nukes the war against Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia will be much worse than Vietnam and Afghanistan combined.

If China tries to take control of Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua for military purposes the US response would depend upon who is president. A weak president like Biden and his Leftist advisors would allow it. A strong president, like Trump would not allow it.

Ok. In our game, as it was in our reality in Cuba, Russia (and China) do support "Panama's alliance" as much as the USA and NATO supported Ukraine.

 

[Zavulon]

You have no clue what you are saying about this area.
1. Mexico's military is busy fighting drug cartels

In our scenario they are united with the cartels.

2. Venezuela has no military, neither does Cuba or Columbia

Russia and China will give them a lot of equipment and "volonteers"

3. China knows better than to oppose the US military in Panama, they are better at long term subversion than projecting military force.

And what if they are not? You don't play for China, you play for the USA.

Nuclear is off the table, no need.

If you say that you won't use nukes first in any circumstances, it means that Latinos (and even Russians and Chinamen) may be as provocative as they want.

 

[the watcher]

So, the question - at what point and against whom, the USA should launch their first nuclear strike? Or suggest other options.

It would be much more effective to "launch" a suitcase nuke here in the US and blame it on the enemy de jour. That would be more our style.

 

[Zavulon]

It would be much more effective to "launch" a suitcase nuke here in the US and blame it on the enemy de jour. That would be more our style.

And what after it?

 

[the watcher]

Total unlimited global war of course. You'r new here, aren't you?