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

[themirrorthief]

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

nuclear war will be quick...you melt in two seconds or less...virtually painless...lets go brandon!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rigby5]

Yes they do and yes they did liar

You ignore afghanistan

There was no such treaty liar

Afghanistan was an attempt by Russia to modernize a neighboring country so that it would be more stable.
But the US financed and armed the Mujahideen, a through back 1400 years to religious fanaticism.
Face facts.
Russia has always been the only good guy in the whole world really.
The US is the most greedy and evil country in the whole world.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong and you are lhying again.

The shoe baning incident had nothing to do with US nukes in Turkey.

Kruschev HIMSELF stated this in his memoirs

The reality is, there was NEVER any actual shoe banging incident at the UN,
The image of that was faked.

But the POINT was that the main conflict between the US and Russia, was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US started by putting US nukes in Turkey, on the Russian border.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

It is not a lie,

They enslaved eastern europe

We made profit and enriched the lives of western eruopean peoples.

Wrong.
Russia liberated eastern Europe from Hitler and the US both.
Russia lost money on Europe, and unlike the US, stole nothing.

 

[Rigby5]

Perhaps this is true on your planet, but here on Earth there are no nukes in any former Warsaw Pact nation and although Ukraine did apply for membership in NATO after Russia's invasion of Georgia NATO has consistently refused to consider Ukraine's application. Clearly the Russian invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO or NATO nukes.

Perhaps on your planet, there is still some advantage to a first nuclear strike, but here on Earth both sides possess technology to detect missile launches' almost instantly a launch a counterstrike long before the first strike has landed so there is no longer any advantage to launching a first strike.

Russia's many nuclear threats are terroristic in nature, intended to destroy the will of the Ukrainian forces to resist Russian imperialist aggression and the will of civilized nations to support Ukraine, but clearly no one is paying attention to these stunts. There is absolutely no defensive dimension to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Wrong.
Neither side can instantly launch nukes.
The incoming have to be detected, analyzed, permission has to be granted, they have to have targets programmed, charging cables disconnected, etc.
Takes over half an hour to launch a retaliatory strike.
And since missiles launched from the Ukraine could hit Russian missile silos in less than 15 minutes, then we could prevent a Russian retaliatory strike.
Which would encourage a US first strike.
Why else would we have taken over the Ukraine in 2014, and why else did we put nukes in Turkey in 1957?

There is zero evidence of any aggressive Russian intents in the Ukraine.

As to the claim there is no defensive dimention to the Russian position, that is obviously falst.
In 2012 the world court verified that the Ukraine has been stealing Russian oil and gas from Russian pipelines running through the Ukraine. Russia has the right defend its resource from that ongoing threat.

 

[miketx]

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.

Liar.

 

[Rigby5]

There was no such treaty moron.

The Ukraine was not independent before 1992, and then under Gorbachev it became independent.
Do you think Gorbachev would have allow that is he knew the Ukraine was going to install NATO nukes?

 

[miketx]

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.

Traitor.

 

[Rigby5]

nuclear war will be quick...you melt in two seconds or less...virtually painless...lets go brandon!!!!!!!!!

Actually over half the populations would survive.
What would not survive in the US is any infrastructure, since all cars, cellphone, utilities, etc., would be out, forever.
Russia is much better prepared, and its infrastructure more divers and harderned.
Russia also has a 10 to 1 advantage in nukes.

 

[Rigby5]

Traitor.

The traitors are in DC, lying about everything, like WMD in Iraq, the US trying to put NATO nukes in on Russia's border, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

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...

Wrong.
The US could not survive a first strike against Russia in 1992, because the Russians could launch retaliation before the US missiles hit.
The ONLY way to launch a first strike successfully against the US is if the missiles are so close that they can hit before a retaliatory strike can launch.
And that is where the Ukraine comes in.
It is close enough to the Russian missile sites for a successful first strike.
Therefore, it can not be allowed to join NATO.

And for those who claim NATO would not put nukes on Russia's border, that is an obvious like since the US already did it in Turkey and Poland, in the past.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

The US can hit Russia with nukes without them being on the Russian border.

We ARE the bad guy, and have always been the bad guy

Has Russia ever been the bad guy? What about China?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Can NATO put nukes in Poland?
What about Finland? Norway?
Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The US can hit Russia with nukes without them being on the Russian border.

We ARE the bad guy, and have always been the bad guy

Has Russia ever been the bad guy? What about China?

You can not normally launch a first strike against Russia without causing a massive retaliatory strike in return.
The only way you can launch a successful first strike against Russia is if it is launched from so close that there is no time to get a retaliatory strike into the air before incoming impact.
And the Ukraine is perfect for a first strike capability.

In China, the Russians were the good guys supporting the majority who also fought the Japanese.
The US was the bad guys, supporting the military dictatorship of general Khaing Kai Shek, who was known to be a Japanese collaborator.

In Korea, we supported the dictator Syngman Rhee, who had been chased out of China a decade before, for bank fraud.

In Vietnam, we supported the dictator Diem, who wanted to prevent elections because the majority would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.

 

[miketx]

The traitors are in DC, lying about everything, like WMD in Iraq, the US trying to put NATO nukes in on Russia's border, etc.

Join them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

In fact, all the countries they have helped, like Poland, Hungary, East Germany

They enslaved Eastern Europe after WW2, to help them? LOL!

Spain, France, England, and the US have always been the big colonial imperialist of the last 200 years.

When did Russia stop being an imperialist power?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only way you can launch a successful first strike against Russia is if it is launched from so close that there is no time to get a retaliatory strike into the air before incoming impact.
And the Ukraine is perfect for a first strike capability.

Plenty of possible launch sites just as close.

 

[Rigby5]

Can NATO put nukes in Poland?
What about Finland? Norway?
Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania?

NATO did put nukes in Poland.
They were short range ABMs, but nuclear and could be used against Russia.
But Russia is demanding they be removed, and Poland is complying.
The ridiculous claim was they were to defend against an attack by Iran.
Finland, Norway, Latvia, etc., refuse nukes.
Zelensky said he wanted NATO nukes.

 

[Rigby5]

In fact, all the countries they have helped, like Poland, Hungary, East Germany

They enslaved Eastern Europe after WW2, to help them? LOL!

Spain, France, England, and the US have always been the big colonial imperialist of the last 200 years.

When did Russia stop being an imperialist power?

Russia was never remotely imperialist since the revolution.
The Warsaw Pact was not to steal money like the US or other imperialists do.
The Warsaw Pact cost Russia money.
Why do you think the USSR went bankrupt?

 

[Rigby5]

Plenty of possible launch sites just as close.

No there are not, and if the US did try to put nukes close by, the same thing would have to happen.
Its identical to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Close first strike nukes can never be allowed.