At what point the USA will launch nukes?

[Zavulon]

“Promo or Plato”. “Silver or Lead” is the slogan the Cartels use with public officials. In other words, take the bribes or die.

It may explain why Mexican officials cover them up. But it still doesn't explain why Americans allow Mexicans to kill one hundred thousand of them every year.
My personal explanation (I don't pretend to understand your logic) is that American decision makers belive that the price of war would be much higher (in the terms of human lives) than the current price of peace.

 

[Zavulon]

Only if Mexico requests it. The US could do it with ease, right from the bases in New Mexico and Texas. But the Mexican government would have to request that. And I can't see them ever doing that.

For some reason, Mexico seems completely incapable of either dealing with their cartels, or asking others for assistance.

Sorry, I've lost here. Mexicans kill you, one hundred thousand of you every year, and you need their request to start killing them back?

 

[Zavulon]

“Promo or Plato”. “Silver or Lead” is the slogan the Cartels use with public officials. In other words, take the bribes or die.

As if the USA can't play this game either. I know you can, and sometimes you are really good in it.

 

[kyzr]

“Promo or Plato”. “Silver or Lead” is the slogan the Cartels use with public officials. In other words, take the bribes or die.

plata o plomo Meaning & Origin | Slang by Dictionary.com

Plata o plomo is a Colombian Spanish slang phrase that translates to “silver or lead.

www.dictionary.com

 

[kyzr]

Same way Ukraine was a Russian ally and business partner. Who said, that cartels can't become a new government?

Less than one hundred. And thousands of American proxies were killed, too. And thats how Russia, Turkey, America, Iran and Israel divided their zones of influence in Syria.

How many "conventional soldiers" you'll need to occupy and control Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama itself, and don't allow local guerillas (backed by other Latin countries, Russia and China) degrade the work of the canal? And, if you declare that you won't use nukes in literally any situation, it means, that China may be as provocative as it wants. They might even give nukes to Venezuela. Why not?

Yep. And thats why local guerillas (and regular Armies of Panama's Alliance) will use them. Good luck to protect the canal from, say, Iskander (or even Oreshnik) missiles.

Yes. But what if, one of the sides doesn't accept suggested terms of the "peaceful coexistence"? What if they create a threat?

1. Cartels are a major threat to government officials. Their "plata o plomo" (silver or lead) "cartel bribe you can't refuse" threat is finding its way into the US the same way the cartels control areas of Mexico, by intimidation. They have billions of dollars to build their business. It will soon be a real battle between Trump and the cartels.
In Russia can the oligarchs ever depose Putin? Probably not, or they'd end up like "the chef".

2. Links say about 300 Russians were killed in Syria. Must have been a brutal battle.

US killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

The truth about the brutal four-hour battle between Russian mercenaries and US commandos in Syria​

3. We won't need many troops to occupy Panama, the jungle is all the security it needs. Mexico is an ally. Taking Cuba is an interesting thought, it might be a good place to develop, and turn Havana into another Miami or Las Vegas. The "occupation" would only be long enough to set up a democracy.
Stop with the nuke bullshit. There is no point in turning areas into radioactive wastelands.

4. Bad idea attacking US forces or territory.

5. Cuba and Ukraine have similarities in that the US or Russia can tolerate their independence so long as they are not used as staging areas for a "first strike" capability. If Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, to guarantee their security from future invasion by Russia, that should not be viewed as a threat to Russia any more than Sweden or Poland. Trump needs to negotiate an end to the war before it gets any worse.

 

[Zavulon]

1. Cartels are a major threat to government officials. Their "plata o plomo" (silver or lead) "cartel bribe you can't refuse" threat is finding its way into the US the same way the cartels control areas of Mexico, by intimidation. They have billions of dollars to build their business. It will soon be a real battle between Trump and the cartels.

If cartels pay them and can punish them, then the cartels are de facto government. You can't win a war just by missile strikes. You'll need jackboots on the ground, and not just "staying" on the ground (as it was in Afghanistan), but smashings faces and balls of drug-dealers. Of course, significant part of Mexican society will percept Gringos as occupants and, say, Los Rusos cartel is almost official department of GRU. And GRU are not those poor Vagner mercenaries.

In Russia can the oligarchs ever depose Putin? Probably not, or they'd end up like "the chef".

They don't need it.

2. Links say about 300 Russians were killed in Syria. Must have been a brutal battle.

US killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

The truth about the brutal four-hour battle between Russian mercenaries and US commandos in Syria​

Oh, this is a bit overestimating.

3. We won't need many troops to occupy Panama, the jungle is all the security it needs

Really? Good luck to defend canal's essential facilities from ballistic missiles without at least some air-defence.

. Mexico is an ally.

You said, that Trump is going to start war against them (their cartels) didn't you?

Taking Cuba is an interesting thought, it might be a good place to develop, and turn Havana into another Miami or Las Vegas. The "occupation" would only be long enough to set up a democracy.
Stop with the nuke bullshit. There is no point in turning areas into radioactive wastelands.

Not much radiation from tactical nukes.

4. Bad idea attacking US forces or territory.

Or what?

5. Cuba and Ukraine have similarities in that the US or Russia can tolerate their independence so long as they are not used as staging areas for a "first strike" capability.

Ukraine is not "Russian Cuba". Poland and Romania are. Ukraine is "Russian California". And as Americans can't tolerate genocide of white, black and yellow Americans in California (or can you?) or Californian membership in Shanghai block, same way, Russia can't tolerate the very existence of Kievan regime.
Independence is allowed only if:
1) There is no more discrimination of Russian speaking people and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and those who committed those crimes are hanged. Plus official recognition of the free results of referendum. Aka "denazification".
2) Ukrainian military can't attack or terrorise Russian regions (including new Russian regions). Demobilisation and no heavy equipment. Aka "demilitarization".
3) Ukraine is not a member of any military block and have no any foreign bases. Aka "neutral status".

If Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, to guarantee their security from future invasion by Russia, that should not be viewed as a threat to Russia any more than Sweden or Poland.

But Russia see NATO military building in Poland and Sweden as a threat, too. You'd better to remove all permanent bases back to at least 1997 NATO borders.

Trump needs to negotiate an end to the war before it gets any worse.

If Trump needs - he can negotiate. But I'm almost sure, that he can't actually defuze the situation. He barely controls the USA and he simply doesn't control Europe.

 

[kyzr]

If cartels pay them and can punish them, then the cartels are de facto government. You can't win a war just by missile strikes. You'll need jackboots on the ground, and not just "staying" on the ground (as it was in Afghanistan), but smashing faces and balls of drug-dealers. Of course, significant part of Mexican society will perceive Gringos as occupiers and, say, Los Rusos cartel is almost official department of GRU. And GRU are not those poor Vagner mercenaries.

True, in certain areas of Mexico the cartels are the de-facto government. We can't win a war against the cartels with missile strikes but we can disrupt the drug pipeline and supply chain. We also need to convince China not to send fentanyl components to Mexico. US prisons are full of drug dealers, they just keep making more. I don't think the GRU and cartels are working together?!

Really? Good luck defending the canal's essential facilities from ballistic missiles without at least some air-defence.

Who would be stupid enough to attack the US forces guarding the Panama Canal? The US military has adequate air defenses.

You said, that Trump is going to start war against them (their cartels) didn't you?

Trump is probably going to attack the drug cartel assets even inside Mexico, but that is NOT the Mexican government, so no official war, just a "war on drugs" to stop killing 100,000 Americans a year.

Not much radiation from tactical nukes.

The US has a "no first use" policy, even for "neutron nukes" (zero radioactivity)

Or what?

If US forces or territory are attacked the US generally does a "disproportionate response", an adequate deterrent.

Ukraine is not "Russian Cuba". Poland and Romania are. Ukraine is "Russian California". And as Americans can't tolerate genocide of white, black and yellow Americans in California (or can you?) or Californian membership in Shanghai block, same way, Russia can't tolerate the very existence of Kievan regime.
Independence is allowed only if:
1) There is no more discrimination of Russian speaking people and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and those who committed those crimes are hanged. Plus official recognition of the free results of referendum. Aka "de-Nazification".
2) Ukrainian military can't attack or terrorize Russian regions (including new Russian regions). Demobilization and no heavy equipment. Aka "demilitarization".
3) Ukraine is not a member of any military block and have no any foreign bases. Aka "neutral status".

LOL! That's the hardest I laughed in a while. Ukraine is Russia's California!
I get the sentiment, but Ukraine is an independent country, California is not, and never was an independent country.
There was no genocide in California nor in Ukraine, so there is no justification for Russia's invasion.
The Ukraine government in Kiev is really none of Moscow's business. They are recognized as an independent country.
If independence is "allowed"? (actually an outline for a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia)
1. I thought that all the Russian speaking regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea) are all under Russia's control?
2. NATO can guarantee no cross-border attacks by policing the Ukraine borders.
3. Ukraine can't trust Russia/Putin, they need NATO's protection like all the other countries bordering Russia, but still cannot have nuclear weapons inside Ukraine (same as now, so there is no real threat to Russia from Ukraine).

But Russia see NATO military building in Poland and Sweden as a threat, too. You'd better to remove all permanent bases back to at least 1997 NATO borders.

Poland feels safer with US bases there to protect them from a Russian invasion. The US troops moved from Germany to Poland, no big deal, they are NOT an invasion force. I'm not aware of any NATO bases in Sweden?

If Trump needs - he can negotiate. But I'm almost sure, that he can't actually defuse the situation. He barely controls the USA and he simply doesn't control Europe.

Trump made a campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine. It remains to be seen if he can accomplish that promise. The Europeans do not want a wider war. We think that Putin will lose revenue when Trump maximizes oil production to lower the price of oil, he could probably get the Saudis to pump more oil too. Trump is also big on "sanctions". So expect sanctions if Putin doesn't end the war. As Trump turns up the heat on Putin, Russia, and the oligarchs, Putin might see that Ukraine is not worth the effort.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It may explain why Mexican officials cover them up. But it still doesn't explain why Americans allow Mexicans to kill one hundred thousand of them every year.
My personal explanation (I don't pretend to understand your logic) is that American decision makers belive that the price of war would be much higher (in the terms of human lives) than the current price of peace.

We don't allow them to kill anyone. Our system of justice doesn't allow our justice system to operate like yours where people can be snatched off the street and disappeared without a trial. The most hardened and obviously guilty criminal is guaranteed a fair and open trial with legal representation and a presumption that he or she is innocent, and the prosecution has to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[AZrailwhale]

plata o plomo Meaning & Origin | Slang by Dictionary.com

Plata o plomo is a Colombian Spanish slang phrase that translates to “silver or lead.

www.dictionary.com

Autocorrupt changed my post and I didn't catch it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

1. Cartels are a major threat to government officials. Their "plata o plomo" (silver or lead) "cartel bribe you can't refuse" threat is finding its way into the US the same way the cartels control areas of Mexico, by intimidation. They have billions of dollars to build their business. It will soon be a real battle between Trump and the cartels.
In Russia can the oligarchs ever depose Putin? Probably not, or they'd end up like "the chef".

2. Links say about 300 Russians were killed in Syria. Must have been a brutal battle.

US killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

The truth about the brutal four-hour battle between Russian mercenaries and US commandos in Syria​

3. We won't need many troops to occupy Panama, the jungle is all the security it needs. Mexico is an ally. Taking Cuba is an interesting thought, it might be a good place to develop, and turn Havana into another Miami or Las Vegas. The "occupation" would only be long enough to set up a democracy.
Stop with the nuke bullshit. There is no point in turning areas into radioactive wastelands.

4. Bad idea attacking US forces or territory.

5. Cuba and Ukraine have similarities in that the US or Russia can tolerate their independence so long as they are not used as staging areas for a "first strike" capability. If Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, to guarantee their security from future invasion by Russia, that should not be viewed as a threat to Russia any more than Sweden or Poland. Trump needs to negotiate an end to the war before it gets any worse.

The US doesn't have to "take" Cuba. All we have to do is relax the restrictions we have on the Cuban immigrants here and they will fund and lead an overthrow of the Cuban communist government. All homegrown with no USA involvement at all.

 

[Mushroom]

Who would be stupid enough to attack the US forces guarding the Panama Canal? The US military has adequate air defenses.

Here is the very problem that has plagued the world since the 1950s. And why anybody launching ballistic missiles at the US or an ally or asset they consider critical to them (or a similar asset or ally of Russia, China, or France) has very likely doomed the planet as we know it.

There is absolutely no way to tell once a missile is launched if it is conventionally armed or nuclear armed. And the simple fact is, ballistic missiles are pretty worthless as a conventional weapon. In short, it is an incredibly expensive way to put ordinance on target. Your typical ICBM would have a conventional payload of about 80k pounds. That is two B-2 bombers, or three B-1 or B-52 bombers. And those bombers can return to base, load more ordinance, and return to lay that down all over again. Once that ICBM is expended, it's gone forever.

Therefore any launch of an ICBM at the US or a target important to the US will by default be treated as if it was a nuclear missile. And responded to in kind. And that is not just the US, every nuclear armed nation looks at it the same way, that is exactly what MAD is and how it works.

This is what the idiots that talk all the time about launching ballistic missiles simply do not understand. If a single nuclear missile is lobbed at the US, UK, Germany, Panama (even today), Japan, South Korea, or one of over a hundred other locations that the US considers of critical interest, the response would most likely be an almost immediate response with nuclear missiles of their own.

This was the nightmare the entire world had for over four decades, and was finally put to rest back in 1987 with the INF treaty. The entire planet gave a huge sigh of relief when it was signed, because it wiped out entire classes of weapons that could be nuclear armed. Leaving only ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers as a threat. But in the 2000s, Russia started to violate that treaty, an outright broke the damned thing. Returning to building ground based missiles that outright violated it. And now we are right back to the situation we were in 35 years ago.

And I find it almost mental that people are once again thinking that they can throw around ballistic missiles without repercussion. Launch a ballistic missile at Panama, say goodbye to Moscow. Because the US response will be a nuclear strike on Russia. Oh, but to be absolutely honest, the first strike by the US would actually not be at Moscow. It would most likely be at a similar target inside Russia, such as the Volga-Baltic Waterway. But then you have the severe risk of escalation, which is what the nightmare scenario for decades was. Russia then responds by lobbing another nuke at say Seattle, then the US responds by taking out St. Petersburg. And at about that time both sides start lobbing off missiles like it was New Year's Eve.

Those who talk so casually about simply lobbing an ICBM without thought of the response I see as either mentally unstable, mentally retarded, or simply stupid. Because that launch would be detected within a minute, and as stated it is impossible to tell until it impacts if the missile is nuclear or not. So the response if going to be nuclear. Once again, because conventional ballistic missiles are rather stupid weapons other than at the tactical level on a battlefield. And even then, 95% are of very limited use. Just look at how effective any of them have been since the V-2 entered service over eight decades ago.

 

[Mushroom]

True, in certain areas of Mexico the cartels are the de-facto government.

And the thing is, we actually have an example of that situation in the past.

Now this is something that most of the "kids" in here are not aware of. But in the 1980s, Columbia was very much like Mexico is today. Where you had four major cartels that used almost the exact same tactics against the Government, and in most ways were considered to run the country. The strongest being the Medellin Cartel, led by Pablo Escobar. And they used almost the same tactics as the cartels in Mexico today, either accept bribes, or get killed (and where the "Columbian Necktie" came into common usage).

However, by the late 1980s, things started to change. Columbia asked for the US to assist, and together both nations went on the hunt and started to eliminate the cartels as a threat. And one by one, they were eliminated. The Medellin in 1993, the Cali in 1995. The Norte del Valle in 2008, and finally the North Coast in 2010. Each of the four major and numerous smaller cartels were eliminated. Because the government finally got serious about taking them out, and requested assistance from the US. Who could dedicate boots on the ground in the fight that could not be corrupted in the same way (especially via threats to their families).

Kinda pointless to even attempt to threaten the family of some US Soldier on the ground going after a cartel member. That was one of the things that helped finally crush the cartels, their threat of violent retaliation was simply not effective against the US military.

Mexico needs to do the same damned thing. Stop playing games with their cartels, and seriously go to war. And also, at least for a period of time and for select crimes change their Constitution. Either authorize Capital Punishment against the top levels of cartel leadership, or simply allow extradition to the US so they can deal with them. I actually had some hopes that Mexico was finally getting the message in 2019 when they finally threw up their hands after El Chapo escaped prison there multiple times so they finally sent him to the US. Where he has finally been locked up for the past eight years and will remain for the rest of his life.

But as long as the cartels are better armed and equipped than the actual Mexican Military, it will not end. And having lived on the "Front Lines" of that war, it is sad to see that Mexico still simply does not get it. Such tactics ultimately are no more effective than when local law enforcement tried to go after the bootleggers and organized crime in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. It took an outside force that was not subject to the same corruption and threats to finally eliminate them.

 

[kyzr]

Here is the very problem that has plagued the world since the 1950s. And why anybody launching ballistic missiles at the US or an ally or asset they consider critical to them (or a similar asset or ally of Russia, China, or France) has very likely doomed the planet as we know it.

There is absolutely no way to tell once a missile is launched if it is conventionally armed or nuclear armed. And the simple fact is, ballistic missiles are pretty worthless as a conventional weapon. In short, it is an incredibly expensive way to put ordinance on target. Your typical ICBM would have a conventional payload of about 80k pounds. That is two B-2 bombers, or three B-1 or B-52 bombers. And those bombers can return to base, load more ordinance, and return to lay that down all over again. Once that ICBM is expended, it's gone forever.

Therefore any launch of an ICBM at the US or a target important to the US will by default be treated as if it was a nuclear missile. And responded to in kind. And that is not just the US, every nuclear armed nation looks at it the same way, that is exactly what MAD is and how it works.

This is what the idiots that talk all the time about launching ballistic missiles simply do not understand. If a single nuclear missile is lobbed at the US, UK, Germany, Panama (even today), Japan, South Korea, or one of over a hundred other locations that the US considers of critical interest, the response would most likely be an almost immediate response with nuclear missiles of their own.

This was the nightmare the entire world had for over four decades, and was finally put to rest back in 1987 with the INF treaty. The entire planet gave a huge sigh of relief when it was signed, because it wiped out entire classes of weapons that could be nuclear armed. Leaving only ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers as a threat. But in the 2000s, Russia started to violate that treaty, an outright broke the damned thing. Returning to building ground based missiles that outright violated it. And now we are right back to the situation we were in 35 years ago.

And I find it almost mental that people are once again thinking that they can throw around ballistic missiles without repercussion. Launch a ballistic missile at Panama, say goodbye to Moscow. Because the US response will be a nuclear strike on Russia. Oh, but to be absolutely honest, the first strike by the US would actually not be at Moscow. It would most likely be at a similar target inside Russia, such as the Volga-Baltic Waterway. But then you have the severe risk of escalation, which is what the nightmare scenario for decades was. Russia then responds by lobbing another nuke at say Seattle, then the US responds by taking out St. Petersburg. And at about that time both sides start lobbing off missiles like it was New Year's Eve.

Those who talk so casually about simply lobbing an ICBM without thought of the response I see as either mentally unstable, mentally retarded, or simply stupid. Because that launch would be detected within a minute, and as stated it is impossible to tell until it impacts if the missile is nuclear or not. So the response if going to be nuclear. Once again, because conventional ballistic missiles are rather stupid weapons other than at the tactical level on a battlefield. And even then, 95% are of very limited use. Just look at how effective any of them have been since the V-2 entered service over eight decades ago.

Zavulon is a very trigger-happy Russian. He seems to think that the Oreshnik is a game-changer or game-winner.

His first post was of the opinion that their new Oreshnik hyper-sonic missile with nuclear warheads would take out our ICBM sites in a few minutes and we would be forced to give Russia Alaska and California or face annihilation. I told him that we still follow the "better dead than red" philosophy and guaranteed him that our nuclear subs would annihilate Russia as soon as the 1st nuke hit.

 

[kyzr]

And the thing is, we actually have an example of that situation in the past.

Now this is something that most of the "kids" in here are not aware of. But in the 1980s, Columbia was very much like Mexico is today. Where you had four major cartels that used almost the exact same tactics against the Government, and in most ways were considered to run the country. The strongest being the Medellin Cartel, led by Pablo Escobar. And they used almost the same tactics as the cartels in Mexico today, either accept bribes, or get killed (and where the "Columbian Necktie" came into common usage).

However, by the late 1980s, things started to change. Columbia asked for the US to assist, and together both nations went on the hunt and started to eliminate the cartels as a threat. And one by one, they were eliminated. The Medellin in 1993, the Cali in 1995. The Norte del Valle in 2008, and finally the North Coast in 2010. Each of the four major and numerous smaller cartels were eliminated. Because the government finally got serious about taking them out, and requested assistance from the US. Who could dedicate boots on the ground in the fight that could not be corrupted in the same way (especially via threats to their families).

Kinda pointless to even attempt to threaten the family of some US Soldier on the ground going after a cartel member. That was one of the things that helped finally crush the cartels, their threat of violent retaliation was simply not effective against the US military.

Mexico needs to do the same damned thing. Stop playing games with their cartels, and seriously go to war. And also, at least for a period of time and for select crimes change their Constitution. Either authorize Capital Punishment against the top levels of cartel leadership, or simply allow extradition to the US so they can deal with them. I actually had some hopes that Mexico was finally getting the message in 2019 when they finally threw up their hands after El Chapo escaped prison there multiple times so they finally sent him to the US. Where he has finally been locked up for the past eight years and will remain for the rest of his life.

But as long as the cartels are better armed and equipped than the actual Mexican Military, it will not end. And having lived on the "Front Lines" of that war, it is sad to see that Mexico still simply does not get it. Such tactics ultimately are no more effective than when local law enforcement tried to go after the bootleggers and organized crime in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. It took an outside force that was not subject to the same corruption and threats to finally eliminate them.

Yep, I remember when the CIA reportedly put a bullet in one of Escobar's ears and it came out the other ear.
That was the legend anyway.

 

[Mushroom]

His first post was of the opinion that their new Oreshnik hyper-sonic missile with nuclear warheads would take out our ICBM sites in a few minutes and we would be forced to give Russia Alaska and California or face annihilation.

His first post is delusional, as the Oreshnik is just another IRBM. And every single IRBM is "hypersonic", there is absolutely nothing special about that. Hell, even the SCUD that Iraq was lobbing in 1991 was "hypersonic", and we were able to hit those. As were the Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles Iraq fired and had intercepted in 2003. Why some continue to believe that just because something is "hypersonic" means it can not be intercepted, I have absolutely no idea. It is the ultimate in self-delusion, as hypersonic missiles have been intercepted and destroyed many times.

The Oreshnik is just another IRBM, nothing special from any of the IRBMs that came before it. Although how they even expect to hit US ICBM bases with an IRBM, I have no idea. Once again, showing detachment from reality.

Of course, he also believes that Russia can magically detect and eliminate all of our SSBNs and other nuclear platforms also.

 

[Zavulon]

True, in certain areas of Mexico the cartels are the de-facto government. We can't win a war against the cartels with missile strikes but we can disrupt the drug pipeline and supply chain.

No, you can't. It will be even less useful than a campaign in Afghanistan.

We also need to convince China not to send fentanyl components to Mexico.

Good luck.

US prisons are full of drug dealers, they just keep making more. I don't think the GRU and cartels are working together?!

Not all cartels, of course, but some of them are pretty cooperative, and Los Rusos are, almost official department of GRU.

Who would be stupid enough to attack the US forces guarding the Panama Canal? The US military has adequate air defenses.

Who was smart enough to attack US forces guarding and training South Vietnam? China pay money, Russia send "volonteers" (including those with heavy equipment), and those Latinoamericans who wants money, weapons and to kill some Gringos join the Panama's People Liberation Army. And good luck with intercepting some Iskander and/or Oreshnik missiles.

Trump is probably going to attack the drug cartel assets even inside Mexico, but that is NOT the Mexican government, so no official war, just a "war on drugs" to stop killing 100,000 Americans a year.

Of course. There are no "official wars" nowadays. But if you wish more or less practical result (not just a political imitation of activity) it will be something more human resources demanding than Vietnam war.

The US has a "no first use" policy, even for "neutron nukes" (zero radioactivity)

Both statements are wrong. There were talks about official implementation of "no first use" policy, but officially the USA keep the right to use nukes first. And the USA doesn't have neutron nukes any more.

If US forces or territory are attacked the US generally does a "disproportionate response", an adequate deterrent.

If you do your "disproportionate response" on PPLA - neither Russia nor China really cares (as the USA don't care about Russian attack on Ukraine).

LOL! That's the hardest I laughed in a while. Ukraine is Russia's California!

Yep.

I get the sentiment, but Ukraine is an independent country, California is not, and never was an independent country.
There was no genocide in California nor in Ukraine, so there is no justification for Russia's invasion.

There was a genocide in Ukraine, and, may be, there will be genocide in California.

The Ukraine government in Kiev is really none of Moscow's business. They are recognized as an independent country.

We can easily take back our recognition of their independence at all. It's not what we really want, but if necessary - it will be done.

If independence is "allowed"? (actually an outline for a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia)
1. I thought that all the Russian speaking regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea) are all under Russia's control?

No. Actually, even if we count "Ukrainian" as a language, not a dialect (group of dialects) of Russian, most of Ukraine is Russian-speaking. But, of course, Russia is not going to allow discrimination of Russians in Ukrainian regions (or Baltic countries) where they are minorities.

2. NATO can guarantee no cross-border attacks by policing the Ukraine borders.

No. NATO can't guarantee anything, because a) NATO's untrustworthy b) they are the side of the conflict.

3. Ukraine can't trust Russia/Putin, they need NATO's protection like all the other countries bordering Russia, but still cannot have nuclear weapons inside Ukraine (same as now, so there is no real threat to Russia from Ukraine).

F#ck Ukraine. Kievan regime is de facto dead, and Ukrainian state won't exist soon. What you should worry about is the mutual safety guarantees between Russia and the USA. And if there is no safety guarantees (practical guarantees, not just words) for Russia, there are no safety guarantees for the USA. Actually, there are guaranteed problems for the USA in this case.

Poland feels safer with US bases there to protect them from a Russian invasion.

And Russia feel unsafer with the US troops in Poland. And when Russia feels insafe - Russia puts a finger on the trigger.

The US troops moved from Germany to Poland, no big deal, they are NOT an invasion force.

Who knows? Who can guarantee it? It may be much safer to attack them first, when they are in Poland, making their preparations to attack Russia.

I'm not aware of any NATO bases in Sweden?

You are not. Russian are.

Trump made a campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine.

If he wants to end the war - he should make few steps back. At least to the borders of 1997. If he won't (and I believe he won't) the war will continue.

It remains to be seen if he can accomplish that promise. The Europeans do not want a wider war.

We'll see. As for now, it seems to me, that at least European elites, decided to commit collective suicide, attacking Russia.

We think that Putin will lose revenue when Trump maximizes oil production to lower the price of oil, he could probably get the Saudis to pump more oil too.

You pump more oil, China and India buy more cheaper oil, improve their industry, Russia got more weapons.

Trump is also big on "sanctions". So expect sanctions if Putin doesn't end the war. As Trump turns up the heat on Putin, Russia, and the oligarchs, Putin might see that Ukraine is not worth the effort.

Ukraine (at least its neutrality) is vital for Russia as California (at least its neutrality) is vital for the USA. The USA can accept Shanghai Block's forces in California only if all (or almost all) US nukes are already eliminated by Russian counter-force strike. The same thing is true for Russia. It's not just a gun pointed directly into your head (as it was with missiles on Cuba and in Europe). Its suggestion to knee, open mouth, take the barrel of the opponent's gun in it, and hope that he won't pull the trigger. A preemptive nuclear attack is much more safe. It has at least 50% chance to win.

 

[Zavulon]

We don't allow them to kill anyone. Our system of justice doesn't allow our justice system to operate like yours where people can be snatched off the street and disappeared without a trial. The most hardened and obviously guilty criminal is guaranteed a fair and open trial with legal representation and a presumption that he or she is innocent, and the prosecution has to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

What "fair and open trial" had conscripts of Iraq's Army before the American bombs fell on them?

 

[Zavulon]

Zavulon is a very trigger-happy Russian. He seems to think that the Oreshnik is a game-changer or game-winner.

No. Oreshnik is not game changer or game winner. But, it can make our raising on the escalation ladder a bit more smooth and safe.

His first post was of the opinion that their new Oreshnik hyper-sonic missile with nuclear warheads would take out our ICBM sites in a few minutes and we would be forced to give Russia Alaska and California or face annihilation.

It is possible. But it is definitely your choice - to leave Eastern Europe before the first nuke is launched, to give Alaska and California after the Russian counter-force strike, unconditionally surrender after the start of counter-value bombing campaign, or die out.

I told him that we still follow the "better dead than red" philosophy and guaranteed him that our nuclear subs would annihilate Russia as soon as the 1st nuke hit.

You told me one thing, in Nuclear Posture Review another thing is written. Why I should believe you, and not your official document?

 

[Mushroom]

Yep, I remember when the CIA reportedly put a bullet in one of Escobar's ears and it came out the other ear.

No, the US was not involved by then with "boots on the ground" (other than I think 1 or 2 DEA agents). That was essentially Columbian "Special Forces". However, we were very much involved in giving them the training and equipment to do the job, as well as intelligence as we had much more capabilities in doing that than Columbia did.

When I was in Panama, I got to know some of the DEA guys that were involved as well as their Columbian counterparts. These were all good DEA agents, from both countries. However, they were all mostly "street cops", so did not really know how to operate in the jungles. So they would be sent to the US Army Jungle Warfare School at Fort Sherman in Panama to learn how to operate as "soldiers" in a jungle environment.

And it does not matter that they were Columbians who lived in a jungle nation, they were mostly street cops that did not know how to operate in that kind of environment. No more than a street cop in Phoenix would know how to operate in a Desert Environment. Or a street cop in Anchorage would know how to operate in an Arctic environment. But once they got that training from Jungle Warfare experts and stopped acting like cops, they became much more effective. Primarily in Columbia, that is all the US provided. Training, equipment, and the intelligence to allow them to take the fight to the cartels themselves.

 

[Zavulon]

His first post is delusional, as the Oreshnik is just another IRBM. And every single IRBM is "hypersonic", there is absolutely nothing special about that. Hell, even the SCUD that Iraq was lobbing in 1991 was "hypersonic", and we were able to hit those. As were the Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles Iraq fired and had intercepted in 2003. Why some continue to believe that just because something is "hypersonic" means it can not be intercepted, I have absolutely no idea. It is the ultimate in self-delusion, as hypersonic missiles have been intercepted and destroyed many times.

The Oreshnik is just another IRBM, nothing special from any of the IRBMs that came before it. Although how they even expect to hit US ICBM bases with an IRBM, I have no idea. Once again, showing detachment from reality.

Of course, he also believes that Russia can magically detect and eliminate all of our SSBNs and other nuclear platforms also.

What is special - is how precise it is. How many American IRBMs can hit a target within one meter circle from the targeting point?