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

[Zavulon]

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".

It was a hypothetical example of a government that sees its people and even the very state as an expandable asset. Just a theory. Usually we do believe that both Russian and American governments are reasonably acting in the interests of their people.

Anyway, long story shortened, there are no winners in a nuclear war. Trying to describe anyone winning is an exercise in futility.

There are winners in any war. If Russia lost 90% and the USA lost 100% of population - Russia won.

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.

No. He is sane. It's much more safe to nuke NATO countries (first of all - the USA) than allow them take Ukraine and then - attack Russia.

Russia has no threats from NATO.

Plain lie.

NATO is a strictly defensive alliance.

Plain lie.

Ukraine is a sovereign country being invaded by Russia.

Plain lie.

NATO is obligated for the security of Ukraine by the Budapest Memorandum, that Russia signed, guaranteeing security if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.

Plain lie.

3. You keep thinking that a first-strike with hyper-sonic missiles will knock out nuclear retaliation.

Yes, they will. At least they will significantly decrease it.

Our missile sites are protected by laser weapons. They work well against short range hyper-sonic missiles.

No.

So I don't think you want to risk annihilation over Ukraine.

Yes. That's why we won't allow you be in Ukraine in any way. And this is exactly why we'll nuke you if there is any realistic possibility to lose 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.

No. The first counter-force strike will force USA to ask for the terms of mutually acceptable but Russia-prefered peace (in which the USA will lose Alaska and California, but will continue their existence as an more or less independent state). We'll demand unconditional surrender only in the case of your counter-value retaliation (which will force us to destroy five your cities for one our).

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.

How it can be MAD if you shoot down all our incoming warheads and we shoot down all yours?
And no, in the case of mutually unsuccessful missile exchange, Russia might launch strategic gigaton class torpedoes. Your coastal agglomerations destroyed and Russia win.

4. There is a sovereign Ukraine, it is NOT Russia's.

Plain lie.

They have not done any genocide of Russians.

Plain lie.

I think Russia already has the Russian speaking portions of Ukraine, those being Crimea and Donbas. Keep them and call it a win.

All Ukraine is more or less Russian speaking. What is even more important - we need the whole Ukraine and NATO back at 1997 borders for our safety.

5. The USA is not "taking" anything, we are helping Ukraine repel an invasion by Russia, as required by the Budapest Memorandum.

Plain lie.

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.

Of course it is our 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.

Its still special operation, not a war. In the case of war - your government will give us Alaska and California.

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.

Of course they are.

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."

As I said - there will be no peace deal if you even denie existence of the problem.
And that makes further escalation and the Russian first strike against the USA almost inevitable.

 

[kyzr]

It was a hypothetical example of a government that sees its people and even the very state as an expandable asset. Just a theory. Usually we do believe that both Russian and American governments are reasonably acting in the interests of their people.

There are winners in any war. If Russia lost 90% and the USA lost 100% of population - Russia won.

No. He is sane. It's much more safe to nuke NATO countries (first of all - the USA) than allow them take Ukraine and then - attack Russia.

Yes, they will. At least they will significantly decrease it.

No.

Yes. That's why we won't allow you be in Ukraine in any way. And this is exactly why we'll nuke you if there is any realistic possibility to lose Ukraine.

No. The first counter-force strike will force USA to ask for the terms of mutually acceptable but Russia-prefered peace (in which the USA will lose Alaska and California, but will continue their existence as an more or less independent state). We'll demand unconditional surrender only in the case of your counter-value retaliation (which will force us to destroy five your cities for one our).

How it can be MAD if you shoot down all our incoming warheads and we shoot down all yours?
And no, in the case of mutually unsuccessful missile exchange, Russia might launch strategic gigaton class torpedoes. Your coastal agglomerations destroyed and Russia win.

All Ukraine is more or less Russian speaking. What is even more important - we need the whole Ukraine and NATO back at 1997 borders for our safety.

Of course it is our business.
Its still special operation, not a war. In the case of war - your government will give us Alaska and California.
Of course they are.

As I said - there will be no peace deal if you even deny existence of the problem.
And that makes further escalation and the Russian first strike against the USA almost inevitable.

1. Assuming governments are acting in the interest of their people the government would NEVER start a nuclear war.

2. There are no winners in a nuclear war. See #1 again.

3. NATO just added Sweden which also borders Russia. Ukraine is no more a threat to Russia than Sweden. NATO would never attack Russia and risk a nuclear war. My personal analysis of Putin's motives for invading Ukraine are financial. Ukraine is known as "the breadbasket of Europe". Putin's economy is very poor, he has oil wells, adding Ukraine would give him more money to expand his military. His other excuses for invading are lies. Putin got Crimea, call that a win.

4. Combining the "truths"
US lasers can shoot down hyper-sonic missiles
Ukraine is sovereign, it is not Russia's
There was never any genocide of Russians in Ukraine
NATO is not a threat to Russia, several NATO countries peacefully border Russia
NATO is helping Ukraine repel the invasion by Russia based on the Budapest Memorandum

5. What problem do we deny the existence of? That Ukraine is sovereign and not Russia's? So Russia is trying to use nuclear blackmail to get NATO to abandon Ukraine? That is not happening. The "problem" is that the USSR broke apart because communist economies don't work. The "problem" is that Putin's ego is writing checks that his army can't cash, so you are saying that he should threaten nuclear war to get Ukraine. That won't work either.

 

[Zavulon]

1. Assuming governments are acting in the interest of their people the government would NEVER start a nuclear war.

They will start a nuclear war if the alternatives are worse.

2. There are no winners in a nuclear war. See #1 again.

You are wrong.

3. NATO just added Sweden which also borders Russia.

Sweden and Finland are next in the line for denazification.

Ukraine is no more a threat to Russia than Sweden.

Sweden (or Finland or Baltic states) are next.

NATO would never attack Russia and risk a nuclear war.

NATO countries already attacked Russia.

My personal analysis of Putin's motives for invading Ukraine are financial.

You "personal analysis of Putin motives" can't be anything but utter BS.

Ukraine is known as "the breadbasket of Europe". Putin's economy is very poor, he has oil wells, adding Ukraine would give him more money to expand his military. His other excuses for invading are lies. Putin got Crimea, call that a win.

No.

4. Combining the "truths"
US lasers can shoot down hyper-sonic missiles
Ukraine is sovereign, it is not Russia's
There was never any genocide of Russians in Ukraine
NATO is not a threat to Russia, several NATO countries peacefully border Russia
NATO is helping Ukraine repel the invasion by Russia based on the Budapest Memorandum

5. What problem do we deny the existence of? That Ukraine is sovereign and not Russia's? So Russia is trying to use nuclear blackmail to get NATO to abandon Ukraine? That is not happening. The "problem" is that the USSR broke apart because communist economies don't work. The "problem" is that Putin's ego is writing checks that his army can't cash, so you are saying that he should threaten nuclear war to get Ukraine. That won't work either.

NATO expansion is the threat. It means that NATO's military infrastructure should return to 1997 borders. If no - there will be escalation and eventually the nuclear war.

 

[kyzr]

They will start a nuclear war if the alternatives are worse.

Sweden and Finland are next in the line for denazification. Sweden (or Finland or Baltic states) are next.

NATO countries already attacked Russia.

You "personal analysis of Putin motives" can't be anything but utter BS.

NATO expansion is the threat. It means that NATO's military infrastructure should return to 1997 borders. If no - there will be escalation and eventually the nuclear war.

1. What alternatives are worse than nuclear war?

2. Russia can't conquer Ukraine, attacking a NATO country would be moronic.

3. Russia attacked Ukraine first, NATO defended Ukraine. Take the peace deal.

4. NATO expands because Russia is aggressive and countries don't want to be invaded. If there is an escalation it will be by Russia, and Russians should know that they can't defeat NATO, read #1 again.

 

[Mushroom]

What damage is acceptable - depends on the goals of the sides.

Wow, I am actually finding it hard to grasp that somebody actually thinks a nuclear war is winnable.

That kind of thinking went out the window in the 1960s.

 

[Litwin]

It brought out a new player...an unstoppable medium range ballistic asset that is accurate up to fifty yards, currently non interceptible and can pack up to 150 kilotons in conventional payload delivery. It can also carry tactical nukes. No wonder there has been some complaining about the decision.

The single response seems to have cooled off the idea of repeating that strategy.

Jo

 

[Mushroom]

NATO expands because Russia is aggressive and countries don't want to be invaded.

Case in point, two nations that had been steadfastly neutral for over seven decades recently joined NATO. The attack on Ukraine was the catalyst for both Sweden and Finland to recognize that trying to be neutral with an aggressive and expansionist Russia was no longer a viable option.

When Finland finally realizes it is no longer in their best interest to be "Finlandized", that tells a hell of a lot about how even nations that were supposed to be nominally an ally of Russia now look at them.

 

[Zavulon]

1. What alternatives are worse than nuclear war?

Total genocide of Russian people, for example, even if we are talking about messing uncontrollable escalation to all out nuclear war. The "smart" attack is preferred even to conventional victory if the price of conventional victory is more than 1 mln of killed and potential price of smart nuclear attack is less than 1 mln of killed.

2. Russia can't conquer Ukraine, attacking a NATO country would be moronic.

Of course Russia can defeat both Ukraine and NATO. Right now we are already fighting NATO countries in more or less proxy war, and this is only a matter of time when the war will become more direct. And when the fight is inevitable and you have a big iron on your hip - its logical to shoot first and shoot precise.

3. Russia attacked Ukraine first, NATO defended Ukraine. Take the peace deal.

No deal until NATO's military infrastructure is returned to 1997 borders. We need good and reliable peace, not some kind of cheesfire.

4. NATO expands because Russia is aggressive and countries don't want to be invaded. If there is an escalation it will be by Russia, and Russians should know that they can't defeat NATO, read #1 again.

Of course we can defeat NATO and we'll do it, whatever the price is. Read #1 again. Victory in the nuclear war is possible, the only question is the price of it. And no price is "too high" when we are talking about the very existence of the Russian people.

 

[Mushroom]

Total genocide of Russian people

And who exactly is supporting something like that, other than the completely unhinged people like Snitwin? Unless you think that Russia is going to do something so horrid that such would actually be demanded of others. Such as, say, launching an unprovoked nuclear war?

 

[Zavulon]

Case in point, two nations that had been steadfastly neutral for over seven decades recently joined NATO. The attack on Ukraine was the catalyst for both Sweden and Finland to recognize that trying to be neutral with an aggressive and expansionist Russia was no longer a viable option.

When Finland finally realizes it is no longer in their best interest to be "Finlandized", that tells a hell of a lot about how even nations that were supposed to be nominally an ally of Russia now look at them.

It was their mistake and we'll prove it soon. And yes, I'm not sure that it was exactly their decision.

 

[Zavulon]

And who exactly is supporting something like that, other than the completely unhinged people like Snitwin?

Our dear friend Litwin is too stupid to invent something really new. He is just parroting European propaganda. And "decolonisation" of Russia is one of official demands of the European Union.

Unless you think that Russia is going to do something so horrid that such would actually be demanded of others. Such as, say, launching an unprovoked nuclear war?

Wow. And now you dare to say, that with all your involvement (including direct involvement) in aggression against Russian people and Russian Federation our further nuclear strike will be "unprovoked"? Really?
In the matter of fact, the proxy war was started with the American involvement in Maidan coup-de-grace. We don't start wars. We finish them. And if it would be necessary to eliminate the USA (or eliminate US nuclear forces and sign a mutually acceptable peace) to finish the war - we'll do it.

If you were in our shoes - you would did it as well. Won't you?

At what point the USA will launch nukes?

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Mushroom]

It was their mistake and we'll prove it soon.

Oh, so now you are thinking that Finland and Sweden should be attacked?

Why, simply for daring to not kowtow to any demands from Russia?

You are aware are you not, that more and more you are behaving exactly like Stalin and Hitler, and are the almost living embodiment of an evil dictatorship, and exactly why such must be stamped out, right? Just the fact that you said that is basically saying that you believe that Russia has the right to do any damned thing they want, simply because they can.

I suppose you would have been one of those standing on the road throwing rocks at those sent to gulags in past decades.

 

[Mushroom]

And now you dare to say, that with all your involvement (including direct involvement)

Really? What exactly have I done? Or the US or NATO for that matter?

Have they actually invaded and annexed multiple other nations? Even more telling, invaded and annexed nations they are actually supposed to be allied with?

Tell me, exactly how much territory from other nations have all of NATO annexed in the past seven decades?

 

[para bellum]

Superpowers do not use nuclear weapons to win the small war.

They understand that they lose the deterrent value of nuclear weapons if they do.

Putin's nuclear blackmail reduces Russia to the status of North Korea.

 

[Zavulon]

Oh, so now you are thinking that Finland and Sweden should be attacked?

I think that safety of Russian citizens should be guaranteed. And NATO's military building in Finland and Sweden endanger it. Therefore - it must be stopped one way or another. Of course I prefer diplomatic solutions, like, say, Finland doesn't build NATO's bases and Russia doesn't burn Finnish cities.

Why, simply for daring to not kowtow to any demands from Russia?

Basically, yes. While Russian demands are quite reasonable and modest.

You are aware are you not, that more and more you are behaving exactly like Stalin and Hitler, and are the almost living embodiment of an evil dictatorship, and exactly why such must be stamped out, right? Just the fact that you said that is basically saying that you believe that Russia has the right to do any damned thing they want, simply because they can.

Hey guys, it were you, who declared "No more Munich, no more Yalta!" and started acting as if only might is right in the first place. You bombed Serbia, you invaded Iraq. It's ok, if you want to destroy post-WWII world order, but you must understand that the new World Order will be build after WWIII, and likely, there will be no place for you in this world.

I suppose you would have been one of those standing on the road throwing rocks at those sent to gulags in past decades.

More likely, I will be one of those "suspicious west-loving smartasses" who is sent in GULAG, or one of those "evil smartasses" testing new poisons and viruses on "innocent western soldiers (who only followed orders)" in that GULAG, or an investigator of Western War crimes, or something. Everything is possible in the future. There is no fate, you know.

 

[kyzr]

Total genocide of Russian people, for example, even if we are talking about messing uncontrollable escalation to all out nuclear war. The "smart" attack is preferred even to conventional victory if the price of conventional victory is more than 1 mln of killed and potential price of smart nuclear attack is less than 1 mln of killed.

Of course Russia can defeat both Ukraine and NATO. Right now we are already fighting NATO countries in more or less proxy war, and this is only a matter of time when the war will become more direct. And when the fight is inevitable and you have a big iron on your hip - its logical to shoot first and shoot precise.

No deal until NATO's military infrastructure is returned to 1997 borders. We need good and reliable peace, not some kind of ceasefire.

Of course we can defeat NATO and we'll do it, whatever the price is. Read #1 again. Victory in the nuclear war is possible, the only question is the price of it. And no price is "too high" when we are talking about the very existence of the Russian people.

1. There is no genocide of Russians, that is a lie. There is no conflict with Russians outside the invaders in Ukraine.
So there is still nothing worse than a nuclear war.

2. You put a lot of faith in Oreshnik, way too much. A first strike against NATO won't eliminate massive retaliation, a first-strike expecting to get past laser defenses is foolish. Gun-slingers don't live very long.

3. There will be no 1997 border deal. The old USSR is dead and gone. So does that mean Russia launches a nuclear attack? That nuclear attack would lead to a Russian genocide. Very bad idea.

4. Your lie about the existence of the Russian people being in danger from NATO is laughable. You have no evidence that NATO has ever been aggressive toward Russia. What is hurting Russia is their invasion of Ukraine. Russia would prosper if it rejoined the community of nations instead of being punished severely for being an invader. Take the peace deal, nuclear war is death.

 

[Zavulon]

1. There is no genocide of Russians, that is a lie.

It was many times before and this is what is happening right now. Your denialism just make your position worse.

2. You put a lot of faith in Oreshnik, way too much. A first strike against NATO won't eliminate massive retaliation, a first-strike expecting to get past laser defenses is foolish. Gun-slingers don't live very long.

Its not just Oreshnik. There are a lot of way to avoid "launch under attack".

3. There will be no 1997 border deal.

Therefore the situation will escalate until the nuclear war.

4. Your lie about the existence of the Russian people being in danger from NATO is laughable. You have no evidence that NATO has ever been aggressive toward Russia.

Of course we have. Right now NATO is actively participating in the murdering of Russian people.

What is hurting Russia is their invasion of Ukraine. Russia would prosper if it rejoined the community of nations instead of being punished severely for being an invader.

Of course no. Allowing murders of Russian people and stealing Russian property is not the way neither to peace nor to prosperity. But crushing the spines of the Western barbarians, dared to attack Russia - is the way to achive more or less lasting peace.

Take the peace deal, nuclear war is death.

You know the current terms of Russia-acceptable peace deal - return of NATO's military infrastructure back to 1997 borders. Those are quite modest and reasonable demands. Take the peace deal on those term, or next terms (after the Russian counter-force strike) will be worse - and they will include your lost of Alaska and California.

 

[Litwin]

. And "decolonisation" of Russia

look, age of the empires has gone. if You dont stop now you will suffer much more more , like many Alawites & Alawite collaborationist do suffer today

 

[kyzr]

It was many times before and this is what is happening right now. Your denialism just make your position worse.

Its not just Oreshnik. There are a lot of way to avoid "launch under attack".

Therefore the situation will escalate until the nuclear war.

Of course we have. Right now NATO is actively participating in the murdering of Russian people.

Of course no. Allowing murders of Russian people and stealing Russian property is not the way neither to peace nor to prosperity. But crushing the spines of the Western barbarians, dared to attack Russia - is the way to achieve more or less lasting peace.

You know the current terms of Russia-acceptable peace deal - return of NATO's military infrastructure back to 1997 borders. Those are quite modest and reasonable demands. Take the peace deal on those term, or next terms (after the Russian counter-force strike) will be worse - and they will include your lost of Alaska and California.

1. We are talking about NOW, not historically. There is no genocide of Russian people, unless Putin launches a nuclear war.

2. There is no way for Russia to avoid extinction if Putin launches against NATO.

3. NATO is defending Ukraine from attack by Putin's army and North Koreans, only military targets are being hit inside Russia, no one is murdering Russian civilians. Take the peace deal and the attacks stop.

4. Ukraine is NOT Russian property. Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

5. The old USSR is dead and gone. This is 2024 not 1997. Russia can be erased by NATO if Russia launches a nuclear war, lets see how stupid or crazy Putin is. My bet is that he gets a bullet thru the head if he orders a nuclear launch. Putin knows better than to start a nuclear war.

 

[Zavulon]

1. We are talking about NOW, not historically. There is no genocide of Russian people, unless Putin launches a nuclear war.

First of all, there is genocide of Russian people. And no, leopard can't change its spots. They tried to genocide us in the past, and they would try to genocide us in future, in they see the opportunity.

2. There is no way for Russia to avoid extinction if Putin launches against NATO.

Of course there is the way. We can kill you first.

3. NATO is defending Ukraine from attack by Putin's army and North Koreans, only military targets are being hit inside Russia, no one is murdering Russian civilians.

Plain lie.

Take the peace deal and the attacks stop.

We don't need a cheesfire. We need lasting, reliable peace. And this peace is only possible in the case of denazification of Ukraine and whole europe, as well as returning NATO's military infrastructure back to at least 1997 borders

4. Ukraine is NOT Russian property. Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

Ukraine was more or less sovereign nation. Now they are just a bunch of hired guns and neo-nazi nest.

5. The old USSR is dead and gone. This is 2024 not 1997.

Did I say a word about USSR? No. Union, Federation, Great Duchy or Empire... All those are just tools. Safety and wealth of Russian people is our goal.

Russia can be erased by NATO if Russia launches a nuclear war, lets see how stupid or crazy Putin is.

Wrong assumption.

My bet is that he gets a bullet thru the head if he orders a nuclear launch. Putin knows better than to start a nuclear war.

Really? How many Putin's generals do you know?