Hmmm....looks like the long range missle thing didn't work out so well...

[Mushroom]

The uS caused no such coup. The US NEVER put nukes in poland

Of course not, Poland is not part of the "Original NATO", plus in the event of war it is so close to the border area that it would be rather pointless to position any there.

The only nations that the US has "weapon sharing" agreements with is Germany, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. And each of them has 20 nukes that are controlled by the US. But in the event of a major war breaking out they could be released to the host nation.

And if anybody wants to bitch and whine about those 100 nukes, they should remember that Russia has the exact same agreement with Belarus, which since 2023 has over 130 Russian nukes in their country. That is quite a few more than all of those the US has in Europe.

 

[luiza]

I wonder which of the three main players will force themselves to use one or both weapons that are arguably far more dangerous than nuclear :-

DEW- either from planes or from satellites . Even from Space .
Engineered weather, up to and including earthquakes

Both are technologies which have been hidden for around the last 60 years .
Both exist Biggly Wiggly already . And both have been tested. But Sheeple have not realised .
Who will move first ?

 

[luiza]

I wonder which of the three main players will force themselves to use one or both weapons that are arguably far more dangerous than nuclear :-

DEW- either from planes or from satellites . Even from Space .
Engineered weather, up to and including earthquakes

Both are technologies which have been hidden for around the last 60 years .
Both exist Biggly Wiggly already . And both have been tested. But Sheeple have not realised .
Who will move first ?

You can mark it how you like SopNazi but why not just simply admit that you have no clue whatsoever about any Black Op projects but being a Cognitively Rigid Denier simplifies life for you .

 

[PeterPilot]

Actually, there were six packs of six warheads each - equals 36 warheads.

If you count the number of explosions recorded on that 1 camera, it was just 6 explosions.

 

[kyzr]

Of course the US wants to commit a first strike offensive against Russia.
That not only is why the US deliberately caused the Maidan coup in 2014, but is why the US put nukes in Turkey and Poland, whenever a country joins NATO that is naive enough to allow the US to use them.
The Ukraine is the perfect place to launch a first strike from since it is inside the Russian defense grid, and that makes a launch from the Ukraine, undetectable. So obviously if it ever looks that Russia is not going to decisively win in the Ukraine, then the only option is to obliterate the US with nukes. There is no other possible alternative.

1. Why would the US nuke Russia? That is a moronic statement. US policy is "deterrence" so stupid dictators like Putin know there is no way to win against NATO. Ukraine is a sovereign country, they can join NATO or not.

2. Russia might want to revise their defense grid since Ukraine isn't Russian.

3. If Russia doesn't capture Ukraine, then it has to nuke the US??? WTF kind of moronic logic is that? If Russia nukes the US, the US nukes Russia, duh.

 

[Litwin]

they can produce hundreds in just a few months,

WHO said it to you ? RT ? you are full of RT crap

 

[Zavulon]

1. Your strategic deterrence clip is about 50 years old. Here is a newer one.

DOD Adjusts Nuclear Deterrence Strategy as Nuclear Peer Adversaries Escalate

Multiple nuclear peer adversaries challenge the security of the U.S. and its allies and partners, according to the Defense Department.

www.defense.gov

"The underlying logic of nuclear deterrence remains sound. Also, the U.S. remains committed to a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent, he said."

Yes, there are some differences between 1980 and 2024: a) NATO and USA are much more provocative; b) USA have much lesser number of missiles (and other strategic targets); c) Russian missiles are much more precise; d) Russia has better sensors and satnav.
And if "First strike" was possible in 1980, it is almost inevitable in 2025.
And I didn't see in the bolded text the simple words: "Now, as it was in late sixties, our official doctrine is MAD". And do you know why? Because there is no such words.

2. Sane logic is that deterrence works. Sane logic says do not start a nuclear war you cannot win.

Vice versa. Sane logic says - "Deterrence is effective while it is believable. Deterrence is believable when it is not suicidal. And deterrence is not suicidal when you can survive and win a nuclear war". Americans don't send their forces (with their flags waiving) in Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war with Russia. It means that American decision-makers believe that if America is too provocative, Russia may start a nuclear war with the USA. And they believe so, because they believe that the Russians believe, that in certan circumstances they (Russians) can start and win a nuclear war with acceptable (comparing alternative scenario) losses.
Thats what we call "Deterrence Type II" or "Multistability". When "stabilty" means only a capability of US forces strike back after first counter-force strike (and, therefore, prevent only this threat), multistability means the capability to prevent another, not nuclear threats, by capability to attack enemies nuclear forces to decrease his retaliation capability to the acceptable level.

3. The point you are apparently missing is "nuclear miscalculation". Similar to when Putin thought he could take Ukraine in 3-days. There is no way to win a nuclear exchange.

Of course there is the way to win nuclear exchange. In fact, in every possible nuclear exchange one side will win. The only question is the price of victory. And the price may be acceptable or unacceptable (comparing with the prize and alternative scenarios). For example, even the price of one million of Russian or American lives is unacceptable (for both Russia and the USA) if we are talking for, say "democratisation" of Afghanistan. But acceptable price for keeping Crimea and Alaska or California and Novorussia is much higher (like, say, fifty million lives). And the acceptable price for prevention of your genocide is, obviously, more than half of your population.

So its a matter of how stupid Putin is. Are you are familiar with chess computers and AI? One of my favorites are the matches between AlphaZero and Stockfish. Gary Kasparov said that watching AlphaZero play chess is like watching a super-intelligence from space show us how to really play chess. Putin may see that over time the US AI capability will only increase, so what can he do with a bad economy? Threaten nuclear blackmail? Good luck with that. Here is the AlphaZero link, AI will only improve over time, so how is the Russian AI program? Keeping up?

AlphaZero Crushes Stockfish In New 1,000-Game Match

In news reminiscent of the initial AlphaZero shockwave last December, the artificial intelligence company DeepMind released astounding results from an updated version of the machine-learning chess project today. The results leave no question, once again, that AlphaZero plays some of the...

www.chess.com

There are some popular AI services in Russia. Like Alice, GigaChat and Kandinsky.

 

[Zavulon]

And not just the US. The launch of nuclear weapons on a NATO nation would mandate a nuclear response by all other NATO nations.

France and the UK are only few more targets for the first strike and only one SSBN in sea each. Nothing that really matters.

That means France and the UK as well. That's another 400 nukes. And if that was to happen, to be honest I would not put it past China to do the same thing. Because they know the nation that launches first would become an instant pariah nation, so they might decide to switch sides so none of the blowback would land on them. As well as possibly trying to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

But Zavulon is living in another world. That is obvious when he stated that Russia in their first strike would neutralize all of the US subs before they could launch. And there would be no US response, for... reasons. You simply can not reason with that kind of insanity, I only hope the Russian leaders are more rational than that.

I don't say that Russia will kill all American (or French and English) submarines. I did say that Russia will decrease their number, and what is even more important, their damaging (retaliation) capability to the acceptable level.

And no. Americans, as I think, won't retaliate for the pretty simple reason. I don't pretend that I do understand what exactly is happening in this rudimental inter-ear ganglia of yours, but my best gestimation is that you won't commit murder-suicide for no reason.
If Russia didn't kill a lot of Americans (not more than 1 mln), if Russia suggested mutually acceptable peace terms and you have no chance to kill more than 50 mln Russians by you retaliation strike - you won't commit immediate retaliation launch. You will negotiate, to at least, prolongation of the "humanitarian pause". Every day you don't attack Russian cities and Russia doesn't attack yours, means many thousands of saved lifes.

But even if my estimations are wrong, and you are not that rational - then it's also more safe to attack you first by well prepared counter-force attack rather then allow you attack first or allow the mess of uncontrolled escalation.

 

[kyzr]

Yes, there are some differences between 1980 and 2024: a) NATO and USA are much more provocative; b) USA have much lesser number of missiles (and other strategic targets); c) Russian missiles are much more precise; d) Russia has better sensors and satnav.
And if "First strike" was possible in 1980, it is almost inevitable in 2025.
And I didn't see in the bolded text the simple words: "Now, as it was in late sixties, our official doctrine is MAD". And do you know why? Because there is no such words.

Vice versa. Sane logic says - "Deterrence is effective while it is believable. Deterrence is believable when it is not suicidal. And deterrence is not suicidal when you can survive and win a nuclear war". Americans don't send their forces (with their flags waiving) in Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war with Russia. It means that American decision-makers believe that if America is too provocative, Russia may start a nuclear war with the USA. And they believe so, because they believe that the Russians believe, that in certain circumstances they (Russians) can start and win a nuclear war with acceptable (comparing alternative scenario) losses.
Thats what we call "Deterrence Type II" or "Multistability". When "stabilty" means only a capability of US forces strike back after first counter-force strike (and, therefore, prevent only this threat), multistability means the capability to prevent another, not nuclear threats, by capability to attack enemies nuclear forces to decrease his retaliation capability to the acceptable level.

Of course there is the way to win nuclear exchange. In fact, in every possible nuclear exchange one side will win. The only question is the price of victory. And the price may be acceptable or unacceptable (comparing with the prize and alternative scenarios). For example, even the price of one million of Russian or American lives is unacceptable (for both Russia and the USA) if we are talking for, say "democratisation" of Afghanistan. But acceptable price for keeping Crimea and Alaska or California and Novorussia is much higher (like, say, fifty million lives). And the acceptable price for prevention of your genocide is, obviously, more than half of your population.

There are some popular AI services in Russia. Like Alice, GigaChat and Kandinsky.

1. Whether you call it MAD or "deterrence" the fact remains, any nuclear attack on the US results in nuclear retaliation and no one wins a nuclear exchange.

2. Deterrence is believable especially when it is suicidal. That is the entire point. No civilized rational person would ever risk the obliteration of their country. The US currently has about 3,700 nuclear warheads. They should provide adequate deterrence. If you believe that Russia can knock out a significant portion of US nuclear weapons, I call bullshit. You don't have hyper-sonic missiles with enough range.

3. I disagree that one side can win a nuclear exchange. If you think that having a devastated country is winning, we have different definitions of winning. Winning is prosperity, not devastation. In Russia the oligarchs are winning, the populace is losing.

 

[Zavulon]

1. Whether you call it MAD or "deterrence" the fact remains, any nuclear attack on the US results in nuclear retaliation and no one wins a nuclear exchange.

No. MAD means "mutually assured destruction". No more, no less. It's a very specific thing. Like the two guys in the bath full of gasoline count who has more matches. "Deterrence" means ability to cause "unacceptable" (in the current circumstances) damage. What damage is acceptable - depends on the goals of the sides. And if the one side's goal is total genocide of another side (as it was officially declared by EU) then the deterrence simply doesn't work. Also, it doesn't work if one side is suicidal.

2. Deterrence is believable especially when it is suicidal.

No. People doesn't believe that the Americans will commit a collective suicide just to save Small Russia from Large Russia.

That is the entire point. No civilized rational person would ever risk the obliteration of their country.

That's why Russia prefer "nuclear victory" (even expensive) to "conventional defeat". That's why the USA would not allow Russia or China deploy their nuclear forces in Texas or California (even if the price of the nuclear victory will be fifty million Americans killed).

The US currently has about 3,700 nuclear warheads.

It doesn't matter how many nukes do you have now. What is matter - how many of them will survive the first Russian strike, how many of them will be able to reach targets inside Russia, what kind of damage they will be able to cause and how fast the Russians will recuperate.

They should provide adequate deterrence.

May be, in the retaliation strike, the USA will be able to kill from one to forty millions of Russians. Its good enough to deter them from, say, their attempt to take Alaska (Russians are definitely not ready to pay even one million of lives to take it), but it definitely not enough from their attempt to save 20 mln Russians living in Ukraine

If you believe that Russia can knock out a significant portion of US nuclear weapons, I call bullshit. You don't have hyper-sonic missiles with enough range.

May be. May be not. Butthere are ways to decrease the necessary range (like using IRBMs or SLBMs) or to increase aviable time (like using moles, saboteurs or hackers to degrade your C3I capabilities).

3. I disagree that one side can win a nuclear exchange. If you think that having a devastated country is winning, we have different definitions of winning.

Russia have accepted "devasted country" as the price of victory over Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII or Sigismund II.
It's not about how much did you lost, it's more about how much did you save (and how much did you win).

Winning is prosperity, not devastation.

No pain, no gain. Prosperity comes with price. And no, before talking about prosperity it's better to talk about survivability.

In Russia the oligarchs are winning, the populace is losing.

No. If the western invaders are winning, both oligarchs and simple men are dying.

 

[kyzr]

No. MAD means "mutually assured destruction". No more, no less. It's a very specific thing. Like the two guys in the bath full of gasoline count who has more matches. "Deterrence" means ability to cause "unacceptable" (in the current circumstances) damage. What damage is acceptable - depends on the goals of the sides. And if the one side's goal is total genocide of another side (as it was officially declared by EU) then the deterrence simply doesn't work. Also, it doesn't work if one side is suicidal.

No. People don't believe that the Americans will commit a collective suicide just to save Small Russia from Large Russia. That's why Russia prefer "nuclear victory" (even expensive) to "conventional defeat". That's why the USA would not allow Russia or China deploy their nuclear forces in Texas or California (even if the price of the nuclear victory will be fifty million Americans killed).

It doesn't matter how many nukes you have now. What is matter - how many of them will survive the first Russian strike, how many of them will be able to reach targets inside Russia, what kind of damage they will be able to cause and how fast the Russians will recuperate.
Maybe, in the retaliation strike, the USA will be able to kill from one to forty millions of Russians. Its good enough to deter them from, say, their attempt to take Alaska (Russians are definitely not ready to pay even one million of lives to take it), but it definitely not enough from their attempt to save 20 mln Russians living in Ukraine. Maybe. Maybe not. But there are ways to decrease the necessary range (like using IRBMs or SLBMs) or to increase available time (like using moles, saboteurs or hackers to degrade your C3I capabilities).

Russia has accepted a "devastated country" as the price of victory over Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII or Sigismund II.
It's not about how much did you lost, it's more about how much did you save (and how much did you win).

No pain, no gain. Prosperity comes with price. And no, before talking about prosperity it's better to talk about survivability.
No. If the western invaders are winning, both oligarchs and simple men are dying.

1. The deterrence is Mutually Assured Destruction. Your analogy of two men with matches in a tub of gas is a good one. Is either one stupid enough to make a spark?

2. Ukraine is not "Small Russia", it is Ukraine, a sovereign country under the protection of NATO via the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up their nuclear warheads. The question is how much is Putin willing to lose over Ukraine? I hear Trump and Zelenskyy are talking about a peace plan. Lets hope that Putin sees that he will never take Ukraine by force, so he should take a peace deal and call it a win.

3. Maybe you aren't picturing the total devastation a nuclear war can create. Radioactivity lasts a long time, there is no survivability or recuperation after a nuclear war, only extinction.

4. We are disagreeing on what is happening in Ukraine. Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine is not Russia's. The US has no troops in Ukraine so we are not "invading". You are trying to invade and capture a country that you have no legal right to invade or capture.

 

[Mushroom]

France and the UK are only few more targets for the first strike

You really think Russia would pull off a first strike, and win?

You are completely delusional.

I don't say that Russia will kill all American (or French and English) submarines. I did say that Russia will decrease their number

And exactly how is it going to do that? You are aware that their Navy is a complete and utter joke, right?

When it comes to Naval Power, Russia has slipped to third place, with most of their surface navy consisting of corvettes. You are aware of what a "Corvette" is, right?

It is literally the smallest classification of rated warships. Smaller than that, and it is essentially a missile boat and only useful in close to shore waters.

A Corvette is smaller than a Frigate, which is smaller than a Destroyer. Which is in turn smaller than a Cruiser. You really think they are going to somehow be able to locate submarines with a handful of corvettes? Once again, completely delusional. And how exactly are they going to locate them? Then get within range and attack them without being detected?

Oh, and are you aware that like the Soviet Union, Russia is extremely limited ASW capabilities. They had always intended to do that with their SSNs, which at this time they have very few of and most are rather antiquated.

, and what is even more important, their damaging (retaliation) capability to the acceptable level.

And no. Americans, as I think, won't retaliate for the pretty simple reason. I don't pretend that I do understand what exactly is happening in this rudimental inter-ear ganglia of yours, but my best gestimation is that you won't commit murder-suicide for no reason.

Right, because just allowing another to destroy your nation without retaliation is such a logical thing to do.

Tell me, if we flipped things here and instead of talking about the US staging a preemptive strike instead of Russia, do you really think that Russia would not retaliate? Do you really think the reverse, and that if the US launched nukes at Russia that they would not retaliate in kind?

If Russia didn't kill a lot of Americans (not more than 1 mln), if Russia suggested mutually acceptable peace terms and you have no chance to kill more than 50 mln Russians by you retaliation strike - you won't commit immediate retaliation launch. You will negotiate, to at least, prolongation of the "humanitarian pause". Every day you don't attack Russian cities and Russia doesn't attack yours, means many thousands of saved lifes.

But even if my estimations are wrong, and you are not that rational - then it's also more safe to attack you first by well prepared counter-force attack rather then allow you attack first or allow the mess of uncontrolled escalation.

Nothing you said was even remotely rational at all.

 

[Mushroom]

NATO and USA are much more provocative

Really? And exactly how much territory have the NATO nations annexed since the fall of the Soviet Union?

I can answer that rather simply, none. Russia on the other hand has annexed over 10,000 square miles of land since the Soviet Union collapsed. And that is not even counting the current conflict.

 

[AZrailwhale]

1. The deterrence is Mutually Assured Destruction. Your analogy of two men with matches in a tub of gas is a good one. Is either one stupid enough to make a spark?

2. Ukraine is not "Small Russia", it is Ukraine, a sovereign country under the protection of NATO via the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up their nuclear warheads. The question is how much is Putin willing to lose over Ukraine? I hear Trump and Zelenskyy are talking about a peace plan. Lets hope that Putin sees that he will never take Ukraine by force, so he should take a peace deal and call it a win.

3. Maybe you aren't picturing the total devastation a nuclear war can create. Radioactivity lasts a long time, there is no survivability or recuperation after a nuclear war, only extinction.

4. We are disagreeing on what is happening in Ukraine. Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine is not Russia's. The US has no troops in Ukraine so we are not "invading". You are trying to invade and capture a country that you have no legal right to invade or capture.

He is stupid enough to think that only Russia and the USA would launch. In the northern hemisphere, Russia would launch, France, the UK and the USA would retaliate. India and Pakistan would launch at each other, China would launch at Russia and probably the USA and India and Israel would probably launch at Iran and all the Muslim cities. Various other countries would attack each other with chemical weapons or by conventional means.

 

[Mushroom]

He is stupid enough to think that only Russia and the USA would launch. In the northern hemisphere, Russia would launch, France, the UK and the USA would retaliate. India and Pakistan would launch at each other, China would launch at Russia and probably the USA and India and Israel would probably launch at Iran and all the Muslim cities. Various other countries would attack each other with chemical weapons or by conventional means.

Naw, Pakistan and India would likely not launch. They have not changed the number of nukes each has in a long time, and seem to be happy knowing they have their own version of MAD.

As for China, they might launch at Russia and reclaim Outer Mongolia, but I think they would largely keep it at that. Especially as the US is their largest trading partner, and they have no actual conflicts when it comes to any territory. Unlike Russia-China, China-India, or India-Pakistan there is nothing to gain from their attacking the US, and everything to lose. Especially as if they did that, they would lose a huge amount of their foreign trade and income. US companies invest on average over $125 billion per year in China, and they make a lot of products for US companies under contract. Attack the US, and that all instantly ends. And not just the US, as Japan, Taiwan, UK and the Commonwealth Nations, and a huge percentage of the world would likely immediately divest themselves of China.

They would probably simply other than reclaiming Outer Mongolia sit back and smile, knowing when the dust cleared they would be the number 1 or 2 superpower in the world.

 

[luiza]

Instead of playing pointless games trying to guess who would, or , would not , do this and that , try also thinking laterally .

What other steps might a country like Russia take ?
Based on Cyber attacks, for example .
In the UK there have been at leasst two huge attacks on weapons storage sites which received almost zero MSM mention
Coincidence?
Of course . If you are stupid . .

 

[Zavulon]

1. The deterrence is Mutually Assured Destruction. Your analogy of two men with matches in a tub of gas is a good one. Is either one stupid enough to make a spark?

There were a lot of such analogies back in sixties. The problem with them is that they are false. Right now there is no MAD situation. The whole system of targets can't be "overkilled". Even in "Armageddon" scenario (both sides play "Mad Butcher" and attack each other's cities without even attempt of evacuation, sheltering or alleviation of the consequences) more than half of both Russian and American population survive the nuclear exchange and still have enough resources to leave attacked regions.

2. Ukraine is not "Small Russia", it is Ukraine, a sovereign country under the protection of NATO via the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up their nuclear warheads. The question is how much is Putin willing to lose over Ukraine? I hear Trump and Zelenskyy are talking about a peace plan. Lets hope that Putin sees that he will never take Ukraine by force, so he should take a peace deal and call it a win.

Ukraine is Small Russia (more exactly , Small Russia is the central part of Ukraine) as well as Belarus is White Russia.

3. Maybe you aren't picturing the total devastation a nuclear war can create. Radioactivity lasts a long time, there is no survivability or recuperation after a nuclear war, only extinction.

I do know about radioactivity. My military specialty was, among others, CRBN-scout.
After, say, 1000 of ground bursts at the MMIII silos, unsheltered population in Montana and Wyoming will die in few days. But Americans are smart, they have cars, they are relatively wealthy and generous. Local population may leave fallout regions for a week or so and their friends/relatives/government will give them shelter and food. After the week - there will be like 5 Chernobyl's there. And Chernobyl, belive me, nowadays is the smallest of Ukraine's problems.
Do you know about Las-Vegas ? There were almost thousand of nuclear bursts near it. And it's population didn't extinct (as far as I know).

4. We are disagreeing on what is happening in Ukraine. Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine is not Russia's. The US has no troops in Ukraine so we are not "invading". You are trying to invade and capture a country that you have no legal right to invade or capture.

Ok. Are you ready to bet Alaska and California for Crimea and Novorussia to prove what belongs to whom?

 

[kyzr]

There were a lot of such analogies back in sixties. The problem with them is that they are false. Right now there is no MAD situation. The whole system of targets can't be "overkilled". Even in "Armageddon" scenario (both sides play "Mad Butcher" and attack each other's cities without even attempt of evacuation, sheltering or alleviation of the consequences) more than half of both Russian and American population survive the nuclear exchange and still have enough resources to leave attacked regions.

Ukraine is Small Russia (more exactly , Small Russia is the central part of Ukraine) as well as Belarus is White Russia.

I do know about radioactivity. My military specialty was, among others, CRBN-scout.
After, say, 1000 of ground bursts at the MMIII silos, unsheltered population in Montana and Wyoming will die in few days. But Americans are smart, they have cars, they are relatively wealthy and generous. Local population may leave fallout regions for a week or so and their friends/relatives/government will give them shelter and food. After the week - there will be like 5 Chernobyl's there. And Chernobyl, believe me, nowadays is the smallest of Ukraine's problems. Do you know about Las-Vegas ? There were almost thousand of nuclear bursts near it. And it's population didn't extinct (as far as I know).

Ok. Are you ready to bet Alaska and California for Crimea and Novorussia to prove what belongs to whom?

1. Not understanding your point here, if a first strike attacks just cities, that invites a massive retaliation, so MAD says that both populations are devastated, nobody wins, plus radioactivity makes huge areas unlivable. There may be survivors, but dying slowly from radiation is not a good outcome. There is no winning anything, just killing everything, MAD works.

2. Ukraine is NOT part of Russia, they do not speak Russian, they are a sovereign country. Belarus is not now part of Russia, so why doesn't Putin invade Belarus?

3. The nuclear tests at Las Vegas were underground, not sure where Russia tested their nukes. Huge areas are restricted due to radiation. Striking at empty silos in Montana or Dakota won't gain Russia anything.

4. I'll bet whatever you want that AK and CA are always part of the USA. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, borders change. Novorussia and the Ottoman Empire were way back in the 1700s, ancient history, irrelevant to today's conflict. Trying to reclaim what became the sovereign country of Ukraine in 1917 is a very bad idea. Ukraine is proving what belongs to whom every day, for 3-years now, and counting. Putin seems ready for a peace deal, before Trump raises the stakes.

 

[Zavulon]

1. Not understanding your point here, if a first strike attacks just cities, that invites a massive retaliation, so MAD says that both populations are devastated, nobody wins, plus radioactivity makes huge areas unlivable. There may be survivors, but dying slowly from radiation is not a good outcome. There is no winning anything, just killing everything, MAD works.

The question of victory and defeat mostly depends on the question of the pre-war goals. If, say, your only goal was "Don't allow Ukraine join NATO", then total elimination of all NATO countries, Ukraine and Russia will means "Russia won".
Another theoretical scenario may involve non-state forces, taking power in Russia/USA. Like radical communists who ready sacrifice Russia for starting World War and, then, World Revolution (and then mutual annihilation of Russia and the USA will be their victory) or radical Roman Catholics in the USA , and for them also, mutual annihilation of orthodox/atheist/muslim Russia and protestant/atheist/muslim USA will be some kind of victory.

But even if we are talking about national interest, the situation in which 100% of Global West population are dead and only 0,5% of the Global South population is survived may be considered as victory of "Global South block".

Anyway, in the terms of normal (classic) deterrence both sides are more interested in the protection of their own population, not in the meaningless murders of others side, and, therefore the first strike (in both sides' national strategies) is counter-force (with the further coerction into peace) with protection of your own population.

And it means that retaliation strike will be (even if defender launched it, commiting suicid) crippled and significantly degraded by the attacker's first strike, and attacker's civil defense readiness will decrease number of attacker's civilian casualties. Actually, even civil defense alone can decrease civilian casualties in Russian to the acceptable level of WWII.

2. Ukraine is NOT part of Russia, they do not speak Russian, they are a sovereign country.

They do speak Russian. And their sovereignity means among other things, responsibility for their actions. They decided that they can join NATO and genocide local Russians. Stupid decision. So, there will be no more "sovereign Ukraine".

Belarus is not now part of Russia, so why doesn't Putin invade Belarus?

Because Belarus doesn't want to join NATO and doesn't discriminate, abuse and genocide local Russians.

3. The nuclear tests at Las Vegas were underground, not sure where Russia tested their nukes.

Just google the pictures from the testing range and enjoy lunar landscape with craters. There were a lot of surface bursts. And Las-Vegas is still pretty alive and kicking. Russia tested nukes both on surface and underground. There are few Atom-lakes in Kazakhstan (ex-craters from surface bursts) people often swim and fishing there (its not very healthy thing, but, say, smoking harm people more). No significant problems. Few days after the burst radiation levels becomes pretty acceptable.

Huge areas are restricted due to radiation. Striking at empty silos in Montana or Dakota won't gain Russia anything.

They won't be empty if the counter-force attack is effective.

4. I'll bet whatever you want that AK and CA are always part of the USA. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, borders change. Novorussia and the Ottoman Empire were way back in the 1700s, ancient history, irrelevant to today's conflict. Trying to reclaim what became the sovereign country of Ukraine in 1917 is a very bad idea. Ukraine is proving what belongs to whom every day, for 3-years now, and counting.

Really? It's not Ukraine. It's NATO, first of all - the USA. And if the USA wants to take Crimea and Novorussia by military force, they must be ready to lose Alaska and California.

Putin seems ready for a peace deal, before Trump raises the stakes.

Putin is always ready for the peace deal. The problem is that Trump isn't ready to accept Russian peace terms yet (including denazification of Ukraine and Baltic states and returning of NATO's military infrastructure to 1997 borders), so there will be escalation. And if Trump is ready to raise stakes - it's good. Higher stakes - higher is our profit.

 

[kyzr]

The question of victory and defeat mostly depends on the question of the pre-war goals. If, say, your only goal was "Don't allow Ukraine join NATO", then total elimination of all NATO countries, Ukraine and Russia will means "Russia won".
Another theoretical scenario may involve non-state forces, taking power in Russia/USA. Like radical communists who ready sacrifice Russia for starting World War and, then, World Revolution (and then mutual annihilation of Russia and the USA will be their victory) or radical Roman Catholics in the USA , and for them also, mutual annihilation of orthodox/atheist/Muslim Russia and protestant/atheist/Muslim USA will be some kind of victory. But even if we are talking about national interest, the situation in which 100% of Global West population are dead and only 0,5% of the Global South population is survived may be considered as victory of "Global South block".

Anyway, in the terms of normal (classic) deterrence both sides are more interested in the protection of their own population, not in the meaningless murders of others side, and, therefore the first strike (in both sides' national strategies) is counter-force (with the further coercion into peace) with protection of your own population. And it means that retaliation strike will be (even if defender launched it, committing suicide) crippled and significantly degraded by the attacker's first strike, and attacker's civil defense readiness will decrease number of attacker's civilian casualties. Actually, even civil defense alone can decrease civilian casualties in Russian to the acceptable level of WWII.

They do speak Russian. And their sovereignty means among other things, responsibility for their actions. They decided that they can join NATO and genocide local Russians. Stupid decision. So, there will be no more "sovereign Ukraine".

Because Belarus doesn't want to join NATO and doesn't discriminate, abuse and genocide local Russians.
Just google the pictures from the testing range and enjoy lunar landscape with craters. There were a lot of surface bursts. And Las-Vegas is still pretty alive and kicking. Russia tested nukes both on surface and underground. There are few Atom-lakes in Kazakhstan (ex-craters from surface bursts) people often swim and fishing there (its not very healthy thing, but, say, smoking harm people more). No significant problems. Few days after the burst radiation levels becomes pretty acceptable.

They won't be empty if the counter-force attack is effective.

Really? It's not Ukraine. It's NATO, first of all - the USA. And if the USA wants to take Crimea and Novorussia by military force, they must be ready to lose Alaska and California.

Putin is always ready for the peace deal. The problem is that Trump isn't ready to accept Russian peace terms yet (including denazification of Ukraine and Baltic states and returning of NATO's military infrastructure to 1997 borders), so there will be escalation. And if Trump is ready to raise stakes - it's good. Higher stakes - higher is our profit.

1. You have more than a few misconceptions about the USA. There are no radical Roman Catholics in the US. Not sure where you heard that? Biden called nuns who protested in front of abortion clinics "domestic terrorists", but that doesn't begin to describe "the Sisters of the Poor". Anyway, long story shortened, there are no winners in a nuclear war. Trying to describe anyone winning is an exercise in futility.

2. If Putin's goal of not allowing Ukraine to join NATO means he's willing to nuke NATO countries, that means he is insane. Russia has no threats from NATO. NATO is a strictly defensive alliance. Ukraine is a sovereign country being invaded by Russia. NATO is obligated for the security of Ukraine by the Budapest Memorandum, that Russia signed, guaranteeing security if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. You should know that.

3. You keep thinking that a first-strike with hyper-sonic missiles will knock out nuclear retaliation. Our missile sites are protected by laser weapons. They work well against short range hyper-sonic missiles. So I don't think you want to risk annihilation over Ukraine.
If I understood your logic, it was that a first strike that cripples the nuclear response would force the US to ask for terms of surrender. That is what we call a "nuclear miscalculation". What I don't know is what would happen if Russia launched, and the US lasers shot down all or even most of the incoming missiles. Would we launch 100% or a proportional retaliation, inviting further exchanges?? It's MAD no matter how you look at it.

4. There is a sovereign Ukraine, it is NOT Russia's. They have not done any genocide of Russians. I think Russia already has the Russian speaking portions of Ukraine, those being Crimea and Donbas. Keep them and call it a win.

5. The USA is not "taking" anything, we are helping Ukraine repel an invasion by Russia, as required by the Budapest Memorandum. There are no US or NATO troops in Ukraine, even if there were, if they were invited by Ukraine, its none of Russia's fucking business.

6. Please stop with the Alaska and California nonsense, Russia can't even take Ukraine. Russia's "army" is poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led.

7. Glad to hear that Putin is open to a peace deal. There are Nazis in Ukraine, but they are not a factor in governance or in committing atrocities. I'm sure Trump could convince Zelenskyy to get the Nazis to change their name. Other than that, Putin's wish-list isn't happening. Take Crimea and Donbas and call it a win.

Opinion | Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's 'denazification' claim isn't

Not acknowledging this threat means that little is being done to guard against it.

www.nbcnews.com

"On its face, Putin’s smear is absurd, not least because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and has said that members of his family were killed during World War II. There is also no evidence of recent mass killings or ethnic purges taking place in Ukraine. Moreover, labeling enemies Nazis is a common political ploy in Russia, especially from a leader who favors disinformation campaigns and wants to stir up feelings of national vengeance against a WWII foe to justify conquest."