At what point the USA will launch nukes?

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.
Street cops, you say... And what about ordinary American conscrips (you won't be a able to win this war without mobilisation) ?
 
There was a genocide in Ukraine, and, may be, there will be genocide in California.
Not true. Since 2014 the lines have been stagnant until Russia invaded.

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.
I remember when the USSR broke up and the Russians and Ukrainians were fighting over which ships went to which navy. They are independent of Russia.

No. NATO can't guarantee anything, because a) NATO's untrustworthy b) they are the side of the conflict.
NATO is a neutral party, so far. Russia can pick a country for their side of the border.

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 for Russia, there are no safety guarantees for the USA. Actually, there are guaranteed problems for the USA in this case.
Are you referring to START? I'm not aware of any "safety guarantee".
There was the Budapest Memorandum that Russia violated when they invaded Ukraine.

And Russia feel unsafer with the US troops in Poland. And when Russia feels unsafe - Russia puts a finger on the trigger.
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.
Stop with the "sword rattling".


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.
We'll see. As for now, it seems to me, that at least European elites, decided to commit collective suicide, attacking Russia.
No EU country attacked Russia. Trump will make things more interesting.

Ukraine's neutrality is as vital for Russia as California is vital for the USA. The USA can accept Shanghai Block's forces in California only if 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 kneel, 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.
Russia has no legitimate claim to Ukraine. The sooner they realize that the better things will be for everyone.
 
I'll go out on a limb here and claim most Americans don't give a sweet sh*t about Ukraine any more than the average Russian Joe does....~S~
 
What "fair and open trial" had conscripts of Iraq's Army before the American bombs fell on them?
They invaded a peaceful neighboring country under Hussein’s orders just like the Russian Army invaded two neighboring peaceful countries under Putin’s orders. As usual you ignore the war crimes committed by the invaders. Those conscripts looted and raped their way across Kuwait. Excuse me if I fail to have any concern when their war backfires upon them. You are a hypocrite on top of every other failing you have. You have no sympathy for all the German draftees the Red Army killed between 1941 and 1945.
 
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.
I think you added a decimal point to the payload. It’s EIGHT thousand pounds, not EIGHTY thousand pounds. The W-87 MIRV rentry vehicles weigh between four and six hundred pounds each. So the payload would max out at six thousand pounds
 
They invaded a peaceful neighboring country under Hussein’s orders just like the Russian Army

Actually it was two countries, as many tend to forget that they also invaded Iran in 1980.

Three when you include Saudi Arabia.

On 29 January 1991 Iraq attacked and occupied Khafji. They occupied and held the town for three days, and even though they tried to proclaim it as a "victory", Iraq lost three armored divisions between taking and trying to hold the town until they were ejected on 1 February.
 
I think you added a decimal point to the payload. It’s EIGHT thousand pounds, not EIGHTY thousand pounds. The W-87 MIRV rentry vehicles weigh between four and six hundred pounds each. So the payload would max out at six thousand pounds

I was replying with what missiles Russia could use, not what our own missiles could use. After all, it would be rather silly if I responded to a possible Russian ICBM attack with American weapons.

So I was referring to the RS-26 (SS-X-31), an IRBM/ICBM (experts are still questioning the range), but in checking again the reference I had used gave the mass of the missile itself as the payload capacity. So that was a failure of my earlier reference, and my not checking it myself.

And yes, conventionally it lobs around 8,000 pounds of conventional explosives.
 
They invaded a peaceful neighboring country under Hussein’s orders just like the Russian Army invaded two neighboring peaceful countries under Putin’s orders. As usual you ignore the war crimes committed by the invaders. Those conscripts looted and raped their way across Kuwait. Excuse me if I fail to have any concern when their war backfires upon them. You are a hypocrite on top of every other failing you have. You have no sympathy for all the German draftees the Red Army killed between 1941 and 1945.
I don't justify neither Iraq nor America. I just ask what kind of individual, fair and open trial has an ordinary conscript of Iraqi Army back in 2003 (say nothing about Iraqi civilians)? Or didn't you use the idea of "collective responsibility" and just eliminated the threat (real or imaginary)? I can more or less understand why Iraq invaded Kuwait. I can more or less understand why the USA invaded Iraq. But what I failed to understand is why the USA didn't invade Mexico. What kind of invitation or support you need from cartels' assets? My guess was that the US decision-makers counted that the real war on drugs will be taking more than 100K of American lives per year.
 
Last edited:
Civilian or military targets? Big difference.
You start with military targets, of course, first of all - their nuclear forces. If you are lucky - their retaliation capability might be degraded to, say, twenty million killed Americans. If you, after your counter-force strike suggest more or less acceptable peace terms - may be, there will be no retaliation strike at all.
If they don't accept your generous peace terms - it will come to counter-value strikes. US government won't deliberately target civilian population in any circumstances.
 
Disclaimer: It's just an intellectual exercise. All matches with real-life states and political forces are accidental.


Let's play a little game about nuclear deterrence type II during totally hypothetical Second American-Mexican War.



Mexico, backed with Latino-American Alliance, Russia, China (and the whole Shanghai block) try to return Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and part of Wyoming (they see them as parts of Mexico) and establish there military bases of Shanghai block as a first goal.
Their final officially declared goal is "total decolonisation of the Northern America" which, in practical terms, means death or expelling all "occupants" - Americans of European, Asian and African origin. Your enemies, you call them all "[political] Indians" for short (while its not really accurate), are a conglomerate of China-financed and Russia-armed political and military groups (from Roman Catholic "Crusaders" to Neo-Paganic descendants of Maya Indians) already proved the seriousness of their intentions to kill all Gringos, by commiting numerous acts of mass-murders and genocide.

The only thing that keeps Shanghai block and Latino-American Alliance from joint, coordinated and direct attack against the USA is American nuclear weapons and determiness of the POTUS to use it when the very existence of the USA is on stake.
Of course, Americans are very interested in the prevention of their genocide and fight bravery, but, slowly but steadily, Shanghai block is increasing support of Mexican "Indians", by sending them modern weapons, "mercenaries" and "advisors". Eventually, may be really soon, they will give them nukes to terrorise American cities.

American Generals suggested some nuclear options:
  • no nukes at all, however provokative Indians are. It means that eventually Mexicans will nuke American cities. Or, fighting against overwhelmingly numerical superior enemy the USA will lose the war of atriction.
  • limited nuclear strikes against some Mexican military sites. It may impress Russia and China, but it's not likely that it will really push them back. They will likely continue "support the rightful war of Mexico in the liberation of their lands".
  • limited nuclear strike against Venezuela or other member of Latino-American Alliance. It will decrease their actual military capabilities, but may cause uncontrolled escalation (and the first nuclear strike from Shanghai blick and Latino-American Alliance.
  • well-planned, decisive and coordinated nuclear attack against nuclear forces of Russia and China with further attempt to coerce them into peace. May be, their retaliation will kill 20 mln of Americans max, but then you'll be safe to kill as much of Indians as necessary, without possible retaliation. Actually, if Russia and China are really determined to genocide Americans by Indian hands - it is the only possible (but very expansive) way to win the war.

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

Could we

Minuteman III test provides vital data before termination

British nuke sub missile launch FAILS as Trident misfires and 'plops' into sea
 
actually, they're invading us Zav......

It is ultimately pointless, as that is the only way that Zav thinks of the world. Either the nation agrees with his beliefs, or they get invaded and forced to agree. There is no other way.

Ans the thing is, the US has invaded Mexico several times. The most recent time being during the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920.

I am sure that his is a huge "black hole" to most in here, it is an area that is almost never covered in history classes. But some of the most notable things during this revolution was the the attack on Columbus, New Mexico by Poncho Villa, and the Punitive force sent after him by the US, led by General John "Blackjack" Pershing.

That went on for almost a year, and while violated "Mexican Territory" multiple times, Mexico largely ignored it as they were going after a revolutionary that was fighting the Mexican Government. And only ended before he was captured because of the US entry into WWI.

That is really the last time the US outright violated Mexican Sovereignty, and Mexico themselves did not make an issue of it either during or afterwards.

And the same might happen in the future, say if the Cartels were ever stupid enough to actually attack the US itself. However, they have actually come close. One of the fun things of living as long as I did in El Paso, was seeing the "war" first hand. I was there when the cartels would barricade drug rehab centers in Mexico and burn alive everybody inside. And witness a major US Interstate closed because bullets from Mexico were flying across the freeway. And a major college campus in the US evacuated because of said bullets. And shortly afterwards a large cement wall erected in the hopes of preventing that from happening again.

A 30-minute fire fight between gunmen and police broke out Saturday along the border in Ciudad Juarez. That's just across the Rio Grande from El Paso and is ground zero in the Mexican drug cartel war.

The next day, university officials found a bullet lodged in an office door frame inside a campus building. Police believe it flew across the border during the shootout.

When I lived in El Paso, my wife and I did all we could to avoid that area of El Paso. All who live there know what I am talking about, Mexico is actually less than ¼ mile from the I-5 and police activity is not uncommon there, easily seen from the freeway. UTEP actually erected a giant cement wall along the southern edge of the campus, to try and stop the bullets from entering there from Mexico.

And to be honest, I have sadly come to see Mexico as a "lost cause", and likely to remain one. Until they eventually get a leader willing to take a stance to put an end to the cartels and the corruption that is destroying the country. But until that happens, people in border areas like El Paso will continue to have to "enjoy" morning traffic reports. Where they will be telling those traveling on the southern side of the border to avoid certain freeways because of decapitated bodies hanging from the overpass.
 
In our reality, yes, you can't launch a successful counter-force strike. And even your retaliation capability is questionable. But in the game setting you can do it.
In the coming battle for Taiwan in 2025 I hope my fellow Americans have " d e i aircraft carrier sunk" on their bingo cards.
First female Captained Aircraft Carrier leaves port:




IMG_20250112_211413.jpg



Dei is our military's highest priority
 
In the coming battle for Taiwan in 2025 I hope my fellow Americans have " d e i aircraft carrier sunk" on their bingo cards.
First female Captained Aircraft Carrier leaves port:

DEI is our military's highest priority
Pete Hegseth will fix DEI.

Point of information, some women are very capable, just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
And to be honest, I have sadly come to see Mexico as a "lost cause", and likely to remain one. Until they eventually get a leader willing to take a stance to put an end to the cartels and the corruption that is destroying the country. But until that happens, people in border areas like El Paso will continue to have to "enjoy" morning traffic reports. Where they will be telling those traveling on the southern side of the border to avoid certain freeways because of decapitated bodies hanging from the overpass
The sad thing is 'Mexico' is getting inside of the US and they turn areas that are relatively far from the border into another El Pasos.
 
The sad thing is 'Mexico' is getting inside of the US and they turn areas that are relatively far from the border into another El Pasos.
I saw when Martha told JD that TDA only had a few apartment complexes in CO, and JD skewered her. "Do you hear yourself Martha?"

She got the criticism of the MSM covering up for Biden and the democrats' lawlessness.
 
Disclaimer: It's just an intellectual exercise. All matches with real-life states and political forces are accidental.


Let's play a little game about nuclear deterrence type II during totally hypothetical Second American-Mexican War.



Mexico, backed with Latino-American Alliance, Russia, China (and the whole Shanghai block) try to return Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and part of Wyoming (they see them as parts of Mexico) and establish there military bases of Shanghai block as a first goal.
Their final officially declared goal is "total decolonisation of the Northern America" which, in practical terms, means death or expelling all "occupants" - Americans of European, Asian and African origin. Your enemies, you call them all "[political] Indians" for short (while its not really accurate), are a conglomerate of China-financed and Russia-armed political and military groups (from Roman Catholic "Crusaders" to Neo-Paganic descendants of Maya Indians) already proved the seriousness of their intentions to kill all Gringos, by commiting numerous acts of mass-murders and genocide.

The only thing that keeps Shanghai block and Latino-American Alliance from joint, coordinated and direct attack against the USA is American nuclear weapons and determiness of the POTUS to use it when the very existence of the USA is on stake.
Of course, Americans are very interested in the prevention of their genocide and fight bravery, but, slowly but steadily, Shanghai block is increasing support of Mexican "Indians", by sending them modern weapons, "mercenaries" and "advisors". Eventually, may be really soon, they will give them nukes to terrorise American cities.

American Generals suggested some nuclear options:
  • no nukes at all, however provokative Indians are. It means that eventually Mexicans will nuke American cities. Or, fighting against overwhelmingly numerical superior enemy the USA will lose the war of atriction.
  • limited nuclear strikes against some Mexican military sites. It may impress Russia and China, but it's not likely that it will really push them back. They will likely continue "support the rightful war of Mexico in the liberation of their lands".
  • limited nuclear strike against Venezuela or other member of Latino-American Alliance. It will decrease their actual military capabilities, but may cause uncontrolled escalation (and the first nuclear strike from Shanghai blick and Latino-American Alliance.
  • well-planned, decisive and coordinated nuclear attack against nuclear forces of Russia and China with further attempt to coerce them into peace. May be, their retaliation will kill 20 mln of Americans max, but then you'll be safe to kill as much of Indians as necessary, without possible retaliation. Actually, if Russia and China are really determined to genocide Americans by Indian hands - it is the only possible (but very expansive) way to win the war.

So, the question - at what point and against whom, the USA should launch their first nuclear strike? Or suggest other options.
I know this is just some hypothetical fantasy, but where it falls down is the idea that Central and South America would declare war to "evict the colonists" from North America.
First, they'd have to evict themselves first. Mexico (i.e., Central America), as well the rest of Central America and all of South America is comprised of people of European descent. With all the nations in that area other than Brazil, they are of Spanish and indigenous descent, whereas Brazil is Portuguese with some indigenous mixture.
Any war that would have the CCP as a partner would mean that China would assert dominance over the US west and oppose any removal of people of Asian descent and turn on the Central and South Americans and probably enlist the aid of Russia as they are already allies. In the end, Central and South America would not only not have gained any territory, but be fighting for their own lives.
On to the hypothesis of the US using nukes at any time. Simple, only if an actual war broke out and we are attacked. So, the military would send up nukes only if they saw nukes coming in. Mutual destruction.
There is an exception. If a nuke was smuggled into the US and detonated AND the US could in some way determine the Uranium radiation signature's origin to say, Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia, then I could see the government giving the green light to sending nukes to whoever they determined was the culprit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top