What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
13,240
Reaction score
3,352
Points
265
You totally ignore fact.
If the Ukraine were to be allowed to join NATO and put nukes on Russia's border, there no longer would be enough time for anyone to get into the safety of any of these shelters.
The ONLY reason for wanting the Ukraine in NATO is to be able to successfully wipe out Russia's retaliatory capability in the first strike.
That can never be allowed.
It would be better to start the nuclear war now, before this NATO first strike capability can be installed.
There was never any effort or intention to put nukes on Ukraine. Your premise is based on an outright lie
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
13,240
Reaction score
3,352
Points
265
Wrong.
It is a lie to claim the Soviet Union "gobbled up eastern Europe".
The Soviet Unions rebuilt eastern Europe, and spent far more on it than it got back from it.
That is totally unlike the US than only makes a profit on everything we do.
We are the colonial imperialist and steal from every country we can, like the oil profits we stole from Iraq.
Russia has never done that to anyone.
It is fact that trhety gobbled up and ENSLAVED eastern europe.

Making a profit is not a bad thing and what we did elevated western europe to first world status while eastern europe remained in slavery and destitution.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
543
Points
918
Location
PacNW
Wow. we both received the opposite news. Lavrov we are told has said Russia wants more territory and intends to get rid of Zelensky is what I was told last night.

What Lavrov wants doesn't matter. What he said in his interview with Ria Novosti and RT on July 20 was:

"Russia cannot accept that in the parts of Ukraine that [President Volodomyr] Zelensky or the one who will replace him will control, there are weapons that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territory of those [eastern Ukrainian] republics that have announced their independence.

If Western countries supply long-range weapons to Ukraine, [these goals] will move even further.”

It does not matter if it's Zelensky the person, or someone else (that Russia does not install). The comment describes a Ukraine that is not under Russia's control.
 

alexa

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
513
Points
98
Location
Scotland
What Lavrov wants doesn't matter. What he said in his interview with Ria Novosti and RT on July 20 was:

"Russia cannot accept that in the parts of Ukraine that [President Volodomyr] Zelensky or the one who will replace him will control, there are weapons that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territory of those [eastern Ukrainian] republics that have announced their independence.

If Western countries supply long-range weapons to Ukraine, [these goals] will move even further.”

It does not matter if it's Zelensky the person, or someone else (that Russia does not install). The comment describes a Ukraine that is not under Russia's control.
Why does what Lavrov say not matter? I didn't get from your last post that it was Zelensky or whoever followed him. I thought you were saying there would be no regime change which that is. It clearly makes a difference whether they go through regime change. My article says that Russia.s desires are now much more than Eastern Donbas and he even talks about Ukraine being Russian. I think Russia will take what she can get. Of course they may change their minds but that Business Insider article suggests they now want regime change and more of Ukraine becoming Russian.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
543
Points
918
Location
PacNW
Why does what Lavrov say not matter? I didn't get from your last post that it was Zelensky or whoever followed him. I thought you were saying there would be no regime change which that is. It clearly makes a difference whether they go through regime change. My article says that Russia.s desires are now much more than Eastern Donbas and he even talks about Ukraine being Russian. I think Russia will take what she can get. Of course they may change their minds but that Business Insider article suggests they now want regime change and more of Ukraine becoming Russian.
Of course Russia would like to kill Zelensky. If they succeed at that, they would like to kill whoever replaces him too. That is a no-brainer and does not deserve explanation.

What Lavrov wants and what Lavrov gets are not the same thing. I don't care about words, I care about actions.

Did I say Russia is giving up? FFS.

My post was to illustrate that a nuclear escalation is NOT a viable option for Russia- I don't care what the propagandists say.

When faced with losing in Kiev, Russia chose to scale back their strategic objective. Taking the entire country was no longer an option. If the gov't in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, they could have just nuked Kiev and been done with it. They didn't do that.

P.S. Business Insider is mostly hype.
 

alexa

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
513
Points
98
Location
Scotland
Of course Russia would like to kill Zelensky. If they succeed at that, they would like to kill whoever replaces him too. That is a no-brainer and does not deserve explanation.

What Lavrov wants and what Lavrov gets are not the same thing. I don't care about words, I care about actions.

Did I say Russia is giving up? FFS.

My post was to illustrate that a nuclear escalation is NOT a viable option for Russia- I don't care what the propagandists say.

When faced with losing in Kiev, Russia chose to scale back their strategic objective. Taking the entire country was no longer an option. If the gov't in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, they could have just nuked Kiev and been done with it. They didn't do that.

P.S. Business Insider is mostly hype.
OK I wasn't reading things through the range of a nuclear war being started. Just for what they said. Bye the way I am pretty sure that Russia's new nukes could get to the US without them being able to detect them but I think this war has shown that even if two nuclear powers go to war, they don't use nukes. If they do that's it. I wish there was just the tiniest bit of people wanting to promote peace. There is a lot which could be done at the moment.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
543
Points
918
Location
PacNW
OK I wasn't reading things through the range of a nuclear war being started. Just for what they said. Bye the way I am pretty sure that Russia's new nukes could get to the US without them being able to detect them but I think this war has shown that even if two nuclear powers go to war, they don't use nukes. If they do that's it. I wish there was just the tiniest bit of people wanting to promote peace. There is a lot which could be done at the moment.
So the reason I posted that comment on this thread was because that is the subject of this thread. "The US is leading the world into nuclear war". It's utter nonsense, I suspect the author is completely aware of that. And if he isn't aware of it, he shouldn't be commenting on it because he is stoking an irrational fear.

If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid mistakes. There have been several false alarms from the early warning systems on both sides. That's a much higher risk, especially for Russian nukes. Russia's early warning network is in dismal condition, and had been ever since the collapse of the USSR.

If NATO really wanted to eliminate Russia, that could have been accomplished in 1992 with a NATO first strike. We knew that, and Russia knew that. What we did was bring Russian observers into our early warning network, to show them that was not our intent.

If Russia, a nuclear weapon state (NWS), conducts a nuclear first-use against Ukraine, a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS), it would mean the dismantling of the NPT, and it would eliminate nuclear weapons as a deterrent for Russia. The taboo would be broken, and everyone would know that Russia was willing to use nuclear weapons in a conventional war. That increases the risk of a first strike against Russia by NATO or China.

Russia knows this. They aren't stupid.

Even some NATO members would be forced to acquire nukes, because they couldn't be sure NATO would respond in kind after they were destroyed. The 186 NNWS signatories of the NPT would no longer trust the non-proliferation regime because the assurances are worthless. There would be a massive nuclear buildup all over the world. Russia does not want this any more than we do...
 
Last edited:

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
15,468
Reaction score
15,290
Points
2,268
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
Off hand, to the degree we are being led to a nuclear war, I’d suggest it ain’t the US doing the “leading.” Two other presently top candidate are Russia and Iran.
 

alexa

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
513
Points
98
Location
Scotland
So the reason I posted that comment on this thread was because that is the subject of this thread. "The US is leading the world into nuclear war". It's utter nonsense, I suspect the author is completely aware of that. And if he isn't aware of it, he shouldn't be commenting on it because he is stoking an irrational fear.

If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid mistakes. There have been several false alarms from the early warning systems on both sides. That's a much higher risk, especially for Russian nukes. Russia's early warning network is in dismal condition, and had been ever since the collapse of the USSR.

If NATO really wanted to eliminate Russia, that could have been accomplished in 1992 with a NATO first strike. We knew that, and Russia knew that. What we did was bring Russian observers into our early warning network, to show them that was not our intent.

If Russia, a nuclear weapon state (NWS), conducts a nuclear first-use against Ukraine, a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS), it would mean the dismantling of the NPT, and it would eliminate nuclear weapons as a deterrent for Russia. The taboo would be broken, and everyone would know that Russia was willing to use nuclear weapons in a conventional war. That increases the risk of a first strike against Russia by NATO or China.

Russia knows this. They aren't stupid.

Even some NATO members would be forced to acquire nukes, because they couldn't be sure NATO would respond in kind after they were destroyed. The 186 NNWS signatories of the NPT would no longer trust the non-proliferation regime because the assurances are worthless. There would be a massive nuclear buildup all over the world. Russia does not want this any more than we do...
yes, I only came into the thread because I had skimmed before and noticed that what you said was the opposite of what I was being told. I think we have dealt with it now.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,498
Reaction score
1,112
Points
140
Why does what Lavrov say not matter? I didn't get from your last post that it was Zelensky or whoever followed him. I thought you were saying there would be no regime change which that is. It clearly makes a difference whether they go through regime change. My article says that Russia.s desires are now much more than Eastern Donbas and he even talks about Ukraine being Russian. I think Russia will take what she can get. Of course they may change their minds but that Business Insider article suggests they now want regime change and more of Ukraine becoming Russian.
There is a quite good article about this. Maybe it will help to clear things up a bit.

 

themirrorthief

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
3,576
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,928
Ex-PM of Japan Abe: "If Zelensky refused to join NATO, gave Donbass autonomy, there would be no fighting"
It's easy and pleasant to tell the truth. But, only when nothing depends on the speaker anymore
you know someone is lying if he says he has the truth
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,048
Reaction score
7,979
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The U.S. isn't the one who keeps using Nuclear threats. Russia is. If Russia acts on those threats, we will respond in kind. Admitting that we will respond, isn't making us the bad guy.

Totally wrong.
The MAIN point of this whole war in the Ukraine is that the US wants the Ukraine to join NATO, so that the US can put nukes on Russia's border.
So it is the US that keeps the nuclear threat constant.
Russia only talks about preventive strikes so that the US won't be able to put first strike nukes in the Ukraine.

We ARE the bad guy, and have always been the bad guy, like Manifest Destiny, the Mexican wars, the Spanish American War, the Monroe Doctrine, Treaty of 5-5-2, WWI, supporting the dictator Khaing Kai Shek, supporting the dictator Syngman Rhee, supporting the dictator Diem, supporting the dictator Batista, supporting the dictator Samosa, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, etc.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,048
Reaction score
7,979
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
There is a quite good article about this. Maybe it will help to clear things up a bit.


I disagree.
Moscow has never had any territorial ambitions in the Ukraine at all, in any way.
All Moscow wants is what is absolutely needs, and that is a government in Kyiv that is NOT going to keep trying to put NATO nukes on Russia's border.
And now that also means a government that will not accept US, French, or Polish weapons.
Its very simple.
Russia has absolutely no need for anything the Ukraine has.
Russia has always had more territory and resources then they ever knew what to do with.
So all Kyiv has to do is not be a threat.
Very simple.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,048
Reaction score
7,979
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Ex-PM of Japan Abe: "If Zelensky refused to join NATO, gave Donbass autonomy, there would be no fighting"
It's easy and pleasant to tell the truth. But, only when nothing depends on the speaker anymore

Correct.
Abe is absolutely right.
The problem is all deliberate provocation by the US, through Kyiv.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
106,550
Reaction score
53,370
Points
2,645
Totally wrong.
The MAIN point of this whole war in the Ukraine is that the US wants the Ukraine to join NATO, so that the US can put nukes on Russia's border.
So it is the US that keeps the nuclear threat constant.
Russia only talks about preventive strikes so that the US won't be able to put first strike nukes in the Ukraine.

We ARE the bad guy, and have always been the bad guy, like Manifest Destiny, the Mexican wars, the Spanish American War, the Monroe Doctrine, Treaty of 5-5-2, WWI, supporting the dictator Khaing Kai Shek, supporting the dictator Syngman Rhee, supporting the dictator Diem, supporting the dictator Batista, supporting the dictator Samosa, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, etc.
Traitor.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,048
Reaction score
7,979
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Go fuck yourself, slav lover. The Russians have been nothing but a threat to us since the communists took over. Nato isn't the cause, NATO is the effect. Russian aggression and brutality has caused this. Russian aggression will escalate shit, not us. Period.

Nonsense.
Russia has never once tried to steal the resources from any other country.
In fact, all the countries they have helped, like Poland, Hungary, East Germany, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Egypt, Syria, etc., have cost them far more than they could ever have gotten from them.
It is the US that invades, steals, enslaves, etc.
And in fact, all of NATO are just old colonial imperialists, with the coalition to enslave the entire world.
Spain, France, England, and the US have always been the big colonial imperialist of the last 200 years.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,048
Reaction score
7,979
Points
265
Location
New Mexico

Traitor to whom?
The people running the US and deliberately starting all these wars are traitors to the original US revolution.
This is supposed to be a republic based on inherent individual rights, but is clearly is a dictatorship instead, with evil things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, which make the US have the largest % incarcerated in the world.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$55.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top