At what point the USA will launch nukes?

UGH. We're getting a bit off-track regarding the US first use of nuclear weapons.
Sorry. Just a little illustration that the ideology of hatred shouldn't necessarily be scientific or even logical.
The only thing I know about Cossaks is from watching the old Yul Brenner movie "Taras Bulba".
"Taras Bulba" 2009 looks like better, but I'm not sure that there is a good English translation somewhere in the net.

Returning to our muttons, I think it is pretty obvious, that the USA will use nukes if there is a real chance to lost Texas and California and then have Russian/Chinese medium range missiles there (or real genocide of White, Yellow and Black people).
 

At what point the USA will launch nukes?​


Translation:

At what point will the USA launch nukes?​

Thanks.
Answer:

Hopefully, never.
Would you prefer Russian and Chinese forces in Texas and California?

As to the OP premise, I decline to play. It’s a silly hypothetical.
It's not totally hypothetical. It's more or less mirroring the situation with Russia and Ukraine, backed by the EU and the USA.
 
Would you prefer Russian and Chinese forces in Texas and California?

It's not totally hypothetical. It's more or less mirroring the situation with Russia and Ukraine, backed by the EU and the USA.
Your analogy is not a good one. Ukraine is an independent country, it is not part of Russia. Besides, here in the US many millions of civilians are better armed than either the Russian or Chinese soldiers. it would just be target practice for us.

You did not repy to my post #122, especially the point that Russia and Ukraine fought over which country would take which ships during the breakup, proving that there was a separation.
 
Your analogy is not a good one. Ukraine is an independent country, it is not part of Russia. Besides, here in the US many millions of civilians are better armed than either the Russian or Chinese soldiers. it would just be target practice for us.

You did not repy to my post #122, especially the point that Russia and Ukraine fought over which country would take which ships during the breakup, proving that there was a separation.
AND THAT RUSSIA ACCEPTED IT,
 
Your analogy is not a good one. Ukraine is an independent country, it is not part of Russia.
First. Cuba and Iraq were also independent countries. Medium range missiles or WMD are a threat even if they are located in an independent country. You see a threat for your people - you try to eliminate it, one way or another.
Second. In our hypothetical reality, "international community" (first of all, of course, Shanghai block and their allies) Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and part of Wyoming as parts of the independent Mexico.
Third. We are talking about real perception of who are "we" and when "we are under attack". A WASP from New York often see WASPs from Canada (while it is still more or less independent country) more "american" than, say, US citizens of African and Latinoamerican origin. And if, say, Canadian Chinamen, French-speaking Quebecians, Native Canadian Indians, Islamic migrants or other "aliens" (even if they are citizens of Canada, supported by Candian government) demonstratively burned alive one hundred of Canadian WASPs - it will cause reaction "we are under [alien] attack" among US WASPs. And even if US government wants to keep peace with Canada, in such situation, there is no way how they can prevent involvement of US volonteers in Canadian problem.


Besides, here in the US many millions of civilians are better armed than either the Russian or Chinese soldiers. it would just be target practice for us.
Light infantry with simple firearms? No artillery, no UAVs, almost no tanks and armored vechicles? It will be target practice for Indians' artillery and aviation.
 
Not true. Since 2014 the lines have been stagnant until Russia invaded.
So what? Ukraine have been preparing to attack DPR and LPR.
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.
Yes. Right now they exist as an independent country. But, they exists as an independent country because and only because Russia recognised their independence. And everything that was given, may be taken back, including Ukrainian independence.

NATO is a neutral party, so far. Russia can pick a country for their side of the border.
We all know, that it is not true. NATO is actively supporting Kievan regime (in fact, Kievan regime is a NATO proxy).

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.
Not only START. First of all I mean NATO's military presence in Eastern Europe and existence of Nazi regimes in Ukraine and Baltic states.

Stop with the "sword rattling".
And start "sword fighting"? It was you, who brought a sword to a shoota fight.

No EU country attacked Russia. Trump will make things more interesting.
France, Germany, Poland are EU members, I believe. And the USA attacked Russia (even "undisputed" Russian territories).

Russia has no legitimate claim to Ukraine. The sooner they realize that the better things will be for everyone.
Of course we have. First of all, talking about "legitimate claims" (and "international law" a all) after Serbia and Iraq is a bit stupid. The only international law working now, is "might is right". "Taiga is the law, and the bear is a prosecutor". Second, we have legal right to defend our territories and our people as well as the right to recognise independence of any former Ukrainian regions.
 
AND THAT RUSSIA ACCEPTED IT,
Russia accepted it on the very certain terms:
1) No discrimination of Russians.
2) No memership in other military alliances.
3) No military threats to Russia.

They violated those terms - their independence is gone.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.

Would you prefer Russian and Chinese forces in Texas and California?


It's not totally hypothetical. It's more or less mirroring the situation with Russia and Ukraine, backed by the EU and the USA.
Yes, that would be fun. I could introduce them to many American things, like snare traps.
And dying because they don't belong here. 😐
They do not have enough guns or knowhow to fuck with Americans a whole helluva lot.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that would be fun. I could introduce them to many American things, like snare traps.
And dying because they don't belong here. 😐
They do not have enough guns or knowhow to fuck with Americans a whole helluva lot.
Good luck making "snare traps", while you are detained in a filtration camp. Or being simply killed by the Indians who believe that it is you, who doesn't belong there.
 
Good luck making "snare traps", while you are detained in a filtration camp. Or being simply killed by the Indians who believe that it is you, who doesn't belong there.
:auiqs.jpg:
Ok, Russki dork. I don't have to start swillin' vodka at noon and I fight like a motherfucker.
You're free to take your chances, but this will not end up good for you.
There's millions like me in the US, too. We're the ones all them SJWs hate all the time.
Here, lemme show you this:
 
:auiqs.jpg:
Ok, Russki dork. I don't have to start swillin' vodka at noon and I fight like a motherfucker.
You're free to take your chances, but this will not end up good for you.
There's millions like me in the US, too. We're the ones all them SJWs hate all the time.
Here, lemme show you this:

Ok. Irregular infantry may be nice, but what is really important in the game of great powers is your nukes. If you are not ready to use them - you'll be defeated (and then genocided) by the "Indians".
 
Ok. Irregular infantry may be nice, but what is really important in the game of great powers is your nukes. If you are not ready to use them - you'll be defeated (and then genocided) by the "Indians".
Oh, they'll get used. We got nukes everywhere, fucker, even places you have no clue and very close to your home.
Submarines, too.
 
When it's time to. Russia will be fucked. China can get some, too.
And when is the perfect time? "When yesterday was too early, and tomorrow will be too late"?
If you use nukes too early against non-nuclear enemy - it means the end of non-proliferation treaty, and the little privileged nuclear club becomes not that little and not that privileged.
If you use nukes too late against a nuclear state (and not against its nuclear forces) - it will be able to retaliate and kill millions of your citizens.

Am I correct?
 
And when is the perfect time? "When yesterday was too early, and tomorrow will be too late"?
If you use nukes too early against non-nuclear enemy - it means the end of non-proliferation treaty, and the little privileged nuclear club becomes not that little and not that privileged.
If you use nukes too late against a nuclear state (and not against its nuclear forces) - it will be able to retaliate and kill millions of your citizens.

Am I correct?
Huh? What? "Treaty"? What's a treaty worth? Nazis and the Sovjets. The UK and the Nazis. NATO and Russia. The US and the UN. The Zionists and the UN. Worthless pieces of paper.
 
Huh? What? "Treaty"? What's a treaty worth? Nazis and the Sovjets. The UK and the Nazis. NATO and Russia. The US and the UN. The Zionists and the UN. Worthless pieces of paper.
Any war, sooner or later is finished with a peace treaty (sometimes it is unconditional surrender of one of sides).
Ok. Let's discuss, what minimal reasonable terms should the USA demand for the acceptable peace in this situation. I suggest those:
1) Mexican forces should be withdrawn from all territories which the USA consider as a part of the USA. Mexican Junta should be executed for aggresion against the USA.
2) There should not be any non-American forces (especially with heavy equipment/medium range missiles) on the both American continents.
3) Ideology of the "Native suprematism" should be officially banned in both America's. White, Black, Yellow people, English speakers and Protestants should have the same rights as Latinoamericans.

What else?
 
First. Cuba and Iraq were also independent countries. Medium range missiles or WMD are a threat even if they are located in an independent country. You see a threat for your people - you try to eliminate it, one way or another.
Second. In our hypothetical reality, "international community" (first of all, of course, Shanghai block and their allies) Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and part of Wyoming as parts of the independent Mexico.
Third. We are talking about real perception of who are "we" and when "we are under attack". A WASP from New York often see WASPs from Canada (while it is still more or less independent country) more "american" than, say, US citizens of African and Latinoamerican origin. And if, say, Canadian Chinamen, French-speaking Quebecians, Native Canadian Indians, Islamic migrants or other "aliens" (even if they are citizens of Canada, supported by Candian government) demonstratively burned alive one hundred of Canadian WASPs - it will cause reaction "we are under [alien] attack" among US WASPs. And even if US government wants to keep peace with Canada, in such situation, there is no way how they can prevent involvement of US volonteers in Canadian problem.
You have more than a few misconceptions in that post.
1. Agreed that WMD are dangerous even in independent countries like Cuba or Ukraine, or Sweden, or Poland, or Turkey, or any NATO country within range. Point being that "Mutually Assured Destruction" guarantees that they should never be used.

2. There can never be a Mexican bloc or a Shanghai bloc in the US. Just can't happen even in a fantasy.

3. Your "race war" just can't happen either. A recent movie "Civil War" had a plot whereby a president like Trump kept power by using the military, and many states' National Guard formed an alliance to defeat the illegitimate president and his rebel army. But no foreign forces were used, which would make sense, since neither side would accept foreign military assistance. Canada and Mexico might help the national guards depose the illegitimate president, in theory.

Light infantry with simple firearms? No artillery, no UAVs, almost no tanks and armored vehicles? It will be target practice for Indians' artillery and aviation.
Millions of accurate snipers would not present targets. I recall Russia lost to the Afghans, and they neighbored Russia. The US is on the opposite side of the globe. The US is safe from occupation by anyone. So the only realistic option is a nuclear exchange and see who can survive a radioactive wasteland, not a good outcome.
 
So what? Ukraine have been preparing to attack DPR and LPR.
Not true. Ukraine would never have attacked Russian troops. The 2014 lines were stable until Putin invaded.
Yes. Right now they exist as an independent country. But, they exist as an independent country only because Russia recognized their independence. And everything that was given, may be taken back, including Ukrainian independence.
That is a major misconception. An independent Ukraine cannot have their independence revoked by Russia. Russia can invade, but the world will help Ukraine defeat the illegal invasion.
We all know, that it is not true. NATO is actively supporting Kievan regime (in fact, Kievan regime is a NATO proxy).
NATO is Ukraine's supporter against the illegal invasion. If there is a peace deal NATO "peacekeepers" will be on Ukraine's border to monitor the "buffer zone". Russia can name a country to monitor their side of the buffer zone, say China or Turkey.
Not only START. First of all I mean NATO's military presence in Eastern Europe and existence of Nazi regimes in Ukraine and Baltic states.
There are no Nazi regimes. A NATO military presence keeps Putin from invading. They have been there keeping the peace since 1945. Russia is the only country that invades other countries.
France, Germany, Poland are EU members, I believe. And the USA attacked Russia (even "undisputed" Russian territories).
That is a lie. Please explain.
Of course we have. First of all, talking about "legitimate claims" (and "international law") after Serbia and Iraq is a bit stupid. The only international law working now, is "might is right". "Taiga is the law, and the bear is a prosecutor". Second, we have legal right to defend our territories and our people as well as the right to recognize independence of any former Ukrainian regions.

1. We aren't talking about Serbia and Iraq, who are independent countries now, not captured states.
2. No clue what "Taiga" means, the translator skipped it. I assume "might makes right"?
3. Agreed that Russia can defend its own territories, the problem happens when they claim someone else's territory, like Ukraine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top