Yeah, let's play a game

[kyzr]

First - Russia is better prepared. Second - when alternative is total genocide, survival among radioactive ruins looks like preferable option. As they sing in the popular song "The noise of Poplars" (meaning Topol-M mobile ICBMs):
"The destruction and starvation will be ended,
Every day will be lighter and warmer,
But all my enemies will be dead,
And buried in the poplar-fluff soft soil"
The question is always what kind of damage and losses is acceptable and what is unacceptable. And when you fight for your own survival - any damage is acceptable.

Why take ANY damage? No need to. The US is all about generating wealth and prosperity. Call it Capitalism.

What will civilization look like in 20-years? Will AI solve nuclear fusion, or will it always be 20-years into the future?

What will AI do in the arms race? Will there even be a need for militaries? Trump wants $600b more for defense in 2027 for a total defense budget of $1.5T. This is getting ridiculous. There are better things to spend money on than weapons.

Trump is taking Putin's "Black Fleet" off the oceans. Better take the peace deal before the shit starts flying.

 

[Zavulon]

Why take ANY damage? No need to. The US is all about generating wealth and prosperity. Call it Capitalism.

I'm not sure about the USA, but EU openly declared among their goals genocide of Russians.
And no, the "invisible hand of market" belongs to certain people, who are acting in their own interests. And those interests are pretty different with the interests of Russian (and/or American) people.

What will civilization look like in 20-years? Will AI solve nuclear fusion, or will it always be 20-years into the future?

AI needs energy and we came through the peak of oil (what was considered as "oil" back in 1970s) twenty years ago.

What will AI do in the arms race?

Looks like, nothing really new, but additional demand of energy. Anyway, 2029 is quite soon, we'll see.

Will there even be a need for militaries?

Yes.

Trump wants $600b more for defense in 2027 for a total defense budget of $1.5T. This is getting ridiculous. There are better things to spend money on than weapons.

Yep. But it seems to me, that he predict inevitable WWIII in few years.

Trump is taking Putin's "Black Fleet" off the oceans. Better take the peace deal before the shit starts flying.

C'mon, you can't be serious. Every action has consequences. And as US sailors didn't see Russian flag over Marinera tanker (and considered her as "no flag"), same way, Russians didn't see US flags over USS Paul Ignatius, USS Bulkeley, USCGC Munro and considered them "flying Jolly Roger flag". So, their crews (and, possibly, their families) were added to "to eliminate" list. Not "top priority", not even "high priority" (unless somebody sponsor their moving higher), but inevitably they will be eliminated as a part of routine job of Russian (and not only Russian) residents. And playing those piracy and counter-piracy games is not something you can win because of your high dependency on sea trade.

And, talking about the deal - "There is nothing to negotiate, there is no reason for negotiations, and there is nobody to negotiate with".

 

[Mushroom]

There is no such things as "stealth" bombers. There are bombers with reduced visibility (for obsolete radars). Modern air defence see them quite good.

OK, fast lesson on what "stealth" really is.

And no, it is not "visibility", that is completely wrong. But what makes it work is that it has a reduced RADAR cross section so the weapons are not able to get a reliable lock on to them. In a missile based air defense system, be it air, sea or ground based having a firm RADAR lock is everything. Don't have it, and the system will absolutely refuse to fire.

You are right, modern RADAR systems actually do see them. I have seen the F-117 and F-22 on military air defense RADAR systems. However, what we were not able to do was to get a RADAR lock on the damned things so we could fire at them (outside of certain conditions like being almost on top of us and had their weapon bay open). We could see them, coming in and out of detection parameters, but never getting a strong enough return signal that we could lock onto them and fire with surface to air missiles.

Oh, and we would see them on the occasions they were landing on the base I was on in the Middle East. Once again the hazy "in and out" detections, until they lowered their landing gear. And almost instantly if we were operating in fire direction mode we could have engaged and destroyed them.

That is why in both 1990-1991 and 2003, Iraq were firing their old school air defense artillery. Old school Soviet made AAA guns that are little different than those used in WWII. Because those could be sighted and fired manually and did not rely upon a hard RADAR lock in order to be fired.

Now granted, they were all firing blind, but it was better than nothing.

By my military specialty I'm a Chemical scout and I have some understanding of American NRBC-delivering systems, including strategic bombers, and modern Air Defence systems.

Really? Since when do CBRN people learn details about NBC delivery systems and air defense systems? And more importantly, why in the hell would some "Super Grunt" that works in CBRN need to know about missile defense systems and all of the various delivery systems including aircraft and missiles? Especially as the US decommissioned their last chemical weapons over three decades ago?

 

[Mushroom]

Reminds me of all the doom and gloom scenario films we had to watch when I was in school in the 60's and 70's.
Nothing but scenarios of WW3, nuclear destruction, what would be left and what would actually survive in the aftermath.

Most kids today have absolutely no concept what it was like during the Cold War.

But this is clear as day when you look at how fatalistic the Punk movement was, and much of our popular culture from the 1970s through the 1980s.

I often laugh when kids think the classic song by Timbuk 3 "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" is a fun poppy song about how great things are. In reality, like so many songs of that era it was about coming nuclear armageddon.

 

[Ringo]

Zoomer decided to compete in injuries, gathering 20 veterans.

 

[Zavulon]

OK, fast lesson on what "stealth" really is.

And no, it is not "visibility", that is completely wrong. But what makes it work is that it has a reduced RADAR cross section so the weapons are not able to get a reliable lock on to them. In a missile based air defense system, be it air, sea or ground based having a firm RADAR lock is everything. Don't have it, and the system will absolutely refuse to fire.

You are right, modern RADAR systems actually do see them. I have seen the F-117 and F-22 on military air defense RADAR systems. However, what we were not able to do was to get a RADAR lock on the damned things so we could fire at them (outside of certain conditions like being almost on top of us and had their weapon bay open). We could see them, coming in and out of detection parameters, but never getting a strong enough return signal that we could lock onto them and fire with surface to air missiles.

Oh, and we would see them on the occasions they were landing on the base I was on in the Middle East. Once again the hazy "in and out" detections, until they lowered their landing gear. And almost instantly if we were operating in fire direction mode we could have engaged and destroyed them.

That is why in both 1990-1991 and 2003, Iraq were firing their old school air defense artillery. Old school Soviet made AAA guns that are little different than those used in WWII. Because those could be sighted and fired manually and did not rely upon a hard RADAR lock in order to be fired.

Now granted, they were all firing blind, but it was better than nothing.

If you are talking about obsolete and primitive air defence systems - yes, you are right. But now it's not 1991. When Modern air defence has a general understanding of the target's position, it can use other ways (like narrow radar array or lidars) to lock the target.

Really? Since when do CBRN people learn details about NBC delivery systems and air defense systems?

Since when they are interested in doing their job well (and don't play personages from "Americans in Iraq" comedies like, you know, "Green Zone" (2010)) . Recon guys must have wider understanding of the situation and possible actions of the enemy to predict them.

And more importantly, why in the hell would some "Super Grunt" that works in CBRN need to know about missile defense systems and all of the various delivery systems including aircraft and missiles?

Smart "Super Grunt" must understand not only that, especially if he suppose to eliminate WMD before it is used. When, say, it is still on the foe's land.

Especially as the US decommissioned their last chemical weapons over three decades ago?

It is not exactly true. The USA eliminated their last chemical weapons in 2023, and still have big amounts of poisonous substances at "Blue Grass" (Kentucky) and "Pueblo" (Colorado) sites. Anyway, we still jeep eye on US abilities of WMD production. And no, "Chemical scout" ("Himik-razvedchik") is more traditional term (like US "cavalry" units without horses). Nowadays we are more interested in nuclear and biological weapons.

 

[Zavulon]

Most kids today have absolutely no concept what it was like during the Cold War.

But this is clear as day when you look at how fatalistic the Punk movement was, and much of our popular culture from the 1970s through the 1980s.

I often laugh when kids think the classic song by Timbuk 3 "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" is a fun poppy song about how great things are. In reality, like so many songs of that era it was about coming nuclear armageddon.

There will be no need in nuking US cities if the USA accept pretty generous (given the circumstances) peace terms after Russian counter-force strike (I'm almost sure that you won't accept them before nuclear strike). Yes, significant territories in Wyoming and Montana will be depopulated but who cares about freaking Montana at all?

 

[kyzr]

I'm not sure about the USA, but EU openly declared among their goals genocide of Russians.
And no, the "invisible hand of market" belongs to certain people, who are acting in their own interests. And those interests are pretty different with the interests of Russian (and/or American) people.

How can the EU genocide Russians, they don't even have an army???? You should be smarter than that.

AI needs energy and we came through the peak of oil (what was considered as "oil" back in 1970s) twenty years ago.

Yes, its an energy hog. We're supposed to double our electric capacity to support AI. It will never pay for itself.
AI looks like the EU's "green energy" disaster, now their renewable energy is simply too expensive.

Looks like, nothing really new, but additional demand of energy. Anyway, 2029 is quite soon, we'll see.

An AI "Terminator" is more probable than not. AI ignores orders now.

Yep. But it seems to me, that he predicts inevitable WWIII in few years.

Trump calls the world "dangerous". But its more dangerous if we keep spending. His "Golden Dome" would be another "Maginot Line", another monument to stupidity.

C'mon, you can't be serious. Every action has consequences. And as US sailors didn't see Russian flag over Marinera tanker (and considered her as "no flag"), same way, Russians didn't see US flags over USS Paul Ignatius, USS Bulkeley, USCGC Munro and considered them "flying Jolly Roger flag". So, their crews (and, possibly, their families) were added to "to eliminate" list. Not "top priority", not even "high priority" (unless somebody sponsor their moving higher), but inevitably they will be eliminated as a part of routine job of Russian (and not only Russian) residents. And playing those piracy and counter-piracy games is not something you can win because of your high dependency on sea trade.
And, talking about the deal - "There is nothing to negotiate, there is no reason for negotiations, and there is nobody to negotiate with".

Even France took a Russian tanker, a few more and the Russian economy collapses. Putin needs to end the war.

France's navy intercepts an oil tanker in the Mediterranean sailing from Russia

Officials say that France’s navy, working with intelligence provided by the United Kingdom, intercepted an oil tanker in the Mediterranean Sea that traveled from Russia, in a mission targeting the sanctioned Russian shadow fleet.

apnews.com

 

[Zavulon]

How can the EU genocide Russians, they don't even have an army???? You should be smarter than that.

They have armies and they have Ukrainian mercenaries. Anyway, they can mobilise a lot of people.

Yes, its an energy hog. We're supposed to double our electric capacity to support AI. It will never pay for itself.

May be. May be it will.

AI looks like the EU's "green energy" disaster, now their renewable energy is simply too expensive.

We just need more energy. First of all - nuclear energy.

An AI "Terminator" is more probable than not. AI ignores orders now.

In the popular alternative fanfic Skynet is just a half-game with donates for Eurasian people, mopping up America's resistance with remote control drones.

Trump calls the world "dangerous". But its more dangerous if we keep spending. His "Golden Dome" would be another "Maginot Line", another monument to stupidity.

Yep. I believe so.

Even France took a Russian tanker, a few more and the Russian economy collapses.

C'mon, they are talking about collapse of Russian economy since 2015. And America with Europe are much more dependent on sea trade, and, therefore, vulnerable from piracy.

Putin needs to end the war.

Putin, as a person, prefers long and low-violent measures (like current Special Military Operation). As he said "It's better to bend, than broke". Like, you know, "coerce" West into peace. As a person, I prone to agree with those who belive that we can't "coerce" NATO into mutually acceptable peace, and should simply eliminate it. So, "ending war", most likely, means escalation and nuclear elimination of the USA, England and France.

 

[Zavulon]

So, when you suggest "end the war without acceptable lasting peace terms", what exactly do you mean? Should we:
1) just surrender and allow Europeans genocide us? (Not an actual option from our point of view).
2) escalate and eliminate NATO countries?

 

[kyzr]

So, when you suggest "end the war without acceptable lasting peace terms", what exactly do you mean? Should we:
1) just surrender and allow Europeans genocide us? (Not an actual option from our point of view).
2) escalate and eliminate NATO countries?

Not sure who this post was for, but my take on it is:
1. No one is surrendering, its an honorable peace. A win-win.
2. Being suicidal is an act of desperation. A very bad idea.

 

[kyzr]

They have armies and they have Ukrainian mercenaries. Anyway, they can mobilise a lot of people.

The EU is not aggressive toward Russia. They are working hard to build their economies.

We just need more energy. First of all - nuclear energy.

True.

In the popular alternative Skynet is just a half-game with donates for Eurasian people, mopping up America's resistance with remote control drones.

It will be drone vs drone and robot vs robot.

Yep. I believe so.....(Trump's Golden Dome is another Maginot Line)

I hope congress says no.

C'mon, they are talking about collapse of Russian economy since 2015. And America with Europe are much more dependent on sea trade, and, therefore, vulnerable from piracy.

It looks like Trump and the EU countries may be pushing harder for an end to the war.
No one is gaining, its just a "meat grinder".

Putin, as a person, prefers long and low-violent measures (like current Special Military Operation). As he said "It's better to bend, than break". Like, you know, "coerce" West into peace. As a person, I prone to agree with those who believe that we can't "coerce" NATO into mutually acceptable peace, and should simply eliminate it. So, "ending war", most likely, means escalation and nuclear elimination of the USA, England and France.

...that series of "eliminations" includes the elimination of Russia, just so you know.

 

[Zavulon]

Not sure who this post was for, but my take on it is:
1. No one is surrendering, its an honorable peace. A win-win.

If we allow Kievan regime and the EU continue genocide of Russians, if we allow NATO keep medium range missiles in Eastern Europe (say nothing about military forces in Ukraine) it's something pretty close to surrender, and given the nature of our European neighbours, surrender means certain suicide.

2. Being suicidal is an act of desperation. A very bad idea.

You suggest us to commit national-wide collective suicide by allowing NATO forces in Ukraine and US medium range missiles in Eastern Europe. It is definitely bad idea. But well-calculated and well-performed attack against US nuclear forces (something what Herman Kahn called as "Pearl Harbour-type attack) is just gambling. Russian roulette with one cartridge in six chambers (and even in the worst case loses won't be much more than twenty million killed). Definitely better than the certain suicide, that you suggest.

 

[Zavulon]

The EU is not aggressive toward Russia.

Of course it is. They actively support Neo-Nazi regimes in Ukraine and in Baltic states, they supported Odessa Massacre and shelling of Donbass. They officially declared goal of "decolonisation of Russia".

They are working hard to build their economies.

Not directly. The current conflict is destroying their economy. They need to conquer Russia and genocide Russians to really improve their economy.

True.

It will be drone vs drone and robot vs robot.

No, if one side attacked first and attacked successfully.

It looks like Trump and the EU countries may be pushing harder for an end to the war.
No one is gaining, its just a "meat grinder".

It's not "meat grinder", not yet. And no, every killed Ukrainian Nazi or mercenary makes the world safer and cleaner. What is more important, the current level of conflict allow Russia to build new, better army, that will crush NATO.

...that series of "eliminations" includes the elimination of Russia, just so you know.

Of course not. It might be gambling, but it might became the lesser evil.

 

[kyzr]

If we allow the Kiev regime and the EU to continue genocide of Russians, if we allow NATO to keep medium range missiles in Eastern Europe (to say nothing about military forces in Ukraine) it's something pretty close to surrender, and given the nature of our European neighbours, surrender means certain suicide.

That is the problem. You view Ukrainians and the EU as hostile enemies, they are not, they want prosperity not war. There is no "genocide" of Russians going on now unless you call the needless Russian deaths in Ukraine "mass suicide = genocide". I'm not aware of medium range missiles being placed in Poland, or Latvia, or Finland, or Turkey, or Bulgaria, and most certainly not in Ukraine. We negotiated Russian missiles of of Cuba. We can negotiate NATO missiles out of eastern Europe.

You suggest us to commit national-wide collective suicide by allowing NATO forces in Ukraine and US medium range missiles in Eastern Europe. It is definitely bad idea. But well-calculated and well-performed attack against US nuclear forces (something what Herman Kahn called as "Pearl Harbour-type attack) is just gambling. Russian roulette with one cartridge in six chambers (and even in the worst case loses won't be much more than twenty million killed). Definitely better than the certain suicide, that you suggest.

YOU were the one who said Russia should nuke the EU and the USA:
"...means escalation and nuclear elimination of the USA, England and France."

i merely pointed out that a nuclear attack by Russia on NATO means a nuclear attack on Russia. A very bad idea.
There is no "certain suicide" that I suggested. If a few NATO army guys were stationed in Ukraine as peacekeepers they would not be a threat to Russia. Similarly, if the "peace deal" said no offensive missiles in Ukraine, what's the problem?
Why couldn't we negotiate nuclear missiles out of countries that border Russia, including Ukraine?

 

[kyzr]

Of course the EU is aggressive towards Russia. They actively support Neo-Nazi regimes in Ukraine and in Baltic states, they supported Odessa Massacre and shelling of Donbas. They officially declared goal of "decolonisation of Russia".

We all signed the Budapest Memorandum that guaranteed Ukraine's security if it gave up its nuclear weapons. Don't complain if we help Ukraine fend off Russia's unprovoked invasion.

The current conflict is destroying the EU economies. They need to conquer Russia and genocide Russians to really improve their economy.

Nonsense. No EU country wants to invade Russia. History has proven that to be a very bad idea.
Besides, wars are expensive, wars do not improve economies, wars create devastation. Look at eastern Ukraine.

No drone warfare, if one side attacked first and attacked successfully.....(with nuclear weapons)

There is no "successful attack using nuclear weapons", there always would be massive retaliation.

It's not a "meat grinder", not yet. And no, every killed Ukrainian Nazi or mercenary makes the world safer and cleaner. What is more important, the current level of conflict allow Russia to build new, better army, that will crush NATO.

Trump said Russia is losing about 30,000 troops each month. If that is close to true, it is a "meat-grinder".
Russia's army is no match for NATO, especially if NATO countries spend 5% of their GDP modernizing.

Of course not. It might be gambling, but it might be the lesser evil.

There is no "gamble" with a nuclear war, it is certain disaster, every time.
The movie "War Games" was about a super-computer tasked with performing a "winning first nuclear strike", it concluded:
"strange game, the only winning move is not to play".

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

From: WarGames Genre: Movies Who said it?: Joshua/WOPR The story behind the quote: The quote comes from the 1983 science fiction thriller, WarGames. In the film, all of the United States nuclear la…

mygeekwisdom.com

 

[Zavulon]

We all signed the Budapest Memorandum that guaranteed Ukraine's security if it gave up its nuclear weapons. Don't complain if we help Ukraine fend off Russia's unprovoked invasion.

I don't complain. We both know, that Budapest Memorabdum is nothing but pretext. And no, it was your side, who supported Maidan coup, i.e. an act of aggression against neutral Ukraine.

Nonsense. No EU country wants to invade Russia. History has proven that to be a very bad idea.

Of course they want, and they already did it. Bad or good, but they always do it.

Besides, wars are expensive, wars do not improve economies, wars create devastation. Look at eastern Ukraine.

But sometimes wars are lesser evil. Actually, they may even hope that Russia occupation after the war will be better than some kind of Thirty years war. Say nothing that America could force them to fight Russia, as Biden did with Ukraine.

There is no "successful attack using nuclear weapons", there always would be massive retaliation.

Not always. Watch "First strike" (1979) or "The House of Dynamite" (2025). And if we are prepered to your retaliation and attacked first, the number of casualties will pretty acceptable (lesser than 20 mln killed). More acceptable that the number of victims in the case of "uncontrollable escalation" or "unacceptable peace".

Trump said Russia is losing about 30,000 troops each month. If that is close to true, it is a "meat-grinder".

Of course it's nothing even close to truth. (At least if you don't count scratches as "casualties" and "losses"). More realistic number is something close to 30k killed in a year. More or less close to death count in car accidents. Do you consider situation on American roads as a "meat-grinder"? I mean, you definitely don't like it, you want to decrease it, but without car traffic there will be much worse situation.

Russia's army is no match for NATO, especially if NATO countries spend 5% of their GDP modernizing.

Plain lie. In the case of a regional war (if Russia is sure that America is absolutely neutral) Russia, according doctrine, will use tactical nukes. And Russia has a lot of them. Much more than France.

There is no "gamble" with a nuclear war, it is certain disaster, every time.

It might be disaster, but alternatives can be worse.

The movie "War Games" was about a super-computer tasked with performing a "winning first nuclear strike", it concluded:
"strange game, the only winning move is not to play".

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

From: WarGames Genre: Movies Who said it?: Joshua/WOPR The story behind the quote: The quote comes from the 1983 science fiction thriller, WarGames. In the film, all of the United States nuclear la…

mygeekwisdom.com

It's a fiction. In real life there are no flawless victories. You fight the war, and you have to pay the price. You just choose scenarios with minimal losses. Twenty million killed is "better" than fifty million killed, and fifty million killed is better than 100% of population genocided.

And, talking about fiction movies, there is a nice time travelling movie "One Hundred Years Ahead" (2024), and there is a choice between bright post-nuclear war (and the war included total destruction, with further rebuild, of Moscow) future in which Earth is controlled by Star Federation (good guys), or world in which there were no nuclear wars (at least Moscow wasn't destroyed) but Earth is controlled by the evil Pirate Alliance. Not that the protagonist have a lot of choice, the pirates want to kill him, and he fight mostly for his own life (saving Earth is just a nice bonus).



I doubt that American censorship will allow this movie on American screens.

 

[Zavulon]

That is the problem. You view Ukrainians and the EU as hostile enemies, they are not, they want prosperity not war.

I know what Ukrainians are. My Mom was Ukrainian, and my Grandmom was western Ukrainian. Some of my friends were Ukrainian Nazies. And they are fighting for something they really value, their "Ukrainian identity". In the situation of free market and free coexistence of Russian and Ukrainian, people doesn't speak Ukrainian. They speak Russian. In the "equal right" situation Ukrainian language in Ukraine will be lesser used than Belarussian in Belarus or Dacota language in North Dacota state. In 2013 in Ukraine lesser than 10% of published fiction books were published in Ukrainian. That's why they need use extreme violence to supress Russian culture and language.

Situation with Europeans is even more simple. They live on a little, overpopulated and resource poor peninsula. They need not just "cheap" Russian resources. They need those resources for free and they need Russian land just to survive. If they try to live on their own - they are going to fall to pre-industrial levels in few decades.

Say nothing about corrupted politicians who sell (to Americans) their subjects as cannon fodder.

I do understand their motivation. And I do understand that "acceptable" for us peace (the world of equal rights and equal safety) is "unacceptable" for them.

There is no "genocide" of Russians going on now unless you call the needless Russian deaths in Ukraine "mass suicide = genocide". I'm not aware of medium range missiles being placed in Poland, or Latvia, or Finland, or Turkey, or Bulgaria, and most certainly not in Ukraine. We negotiated Russian missiles of of Cuba. We can negotiate NATO missiles out of eastern Europe.

We had the treaty once. You had violated it and then you cancelled it. And the only reason why you need medium range missiles in Europe - you are preparing to attack Russia.

YOU were the one who said Russia should nuke the EU and the USA:
"...means escalation and nuclear elimination of the USA, England and France."

Yep. It seems to me, that you won't accept Russia-acceptable terms without good nuking. Actually, if those media "leaks" are even 10% true, your decision-makers doesn't even think about what kind of peace is acceptable for Russia.

i merely pointed out that a nuclear attack by Russia on NATO means a nuclear attack on Russia. A very bad idea.

It depends. Attacking first is definitely better than attack second.

There is no "certain suicide" that I suggested. If a few NATO army guys were stationed in Ukraine as peacekeepers they would not be a threat to Russia.

Its just a tripware. You send peacekeepers to start a war if those peacekeepers are killed. And, say, French peacekeepers in Odessa will be killed pretty soon.

Similarly, if the "peace deal" said no offensive missiles in Ukraine, what's the problem?

Ok. Let's play the game. France send few hundred peacekeepers armed with firearms in Odessa. If there is still the same regime in Kiev, there will be rebellion in Odessa. There is a rebellion and French peacekeepers are killed. France decided to send more troops to supress Odessa Rebellion and support Kievan regime. Of course, more troops with tanks and missiles are unacceptable for Russia. Russian Federation send a big salvo of cruise missiles and UAVs and kill them all. France declare war on Russian Federation and just to protect their nuclear Triumphant-class SSBNs order them out of the base. Russia face the choice between allowing all three submarines in sea (and in this case Moscow can be destroyed) or killing two submarines in the base and face retaliation from only one submarine (that can't destroy Moscow, and can destroy, say, Voronezh). The choice between Moscow and Voronezh is obvious (especially if France already declared the war) and Russia nuke base Ile-Longe, and say, that if France nuke Russian cities - Russia will destroy seven French cities for every Russian. France have choice - retaliate and be destroyed or don't retaliate and surrender. Smart choice is to surrender, but they can decide otherwise (especially if Macron sold Frenchies as Zelenskiy sold Ukrainians, for big money and some guarantees of persobal safety). France destroyed Voronezh and Russia destroyed seven medium-size French cities and demand unconditional surrender. Now the USA face the choice - accept nuclear defeat of their nuclear ally and sign a mutually acceptable peace with Russia without any provocative moves (as they wrote in schemes - "Millions dead, Russian domination") or bring nukes on the table and start their own preparations to a nuclear war and in this situation the one who shot first is the one who laugh last.

That's what we call "escalation". And it is inevitable if we didn't eradicate the roots of conflict - NATO expansion and Ukrainian nationalism.

Why couldn't we negotiate nuclear missiles out of countries that border Russia, including Ukraine?

You don't want to negotiate even strategic missiles, exactly because you are preparing to the war on Russia. Or ask your congresman why Trump can't negotiate prolongation of the New Start treaty.

 

[kyzr]

I don't complain. We both know, that Budapest Memorandum is nothing but pretext. And no, it was your side, who supported Maidan coup, i.e. an act of aggression against neutral Ukraine.

I disagree with that. Signing an agreement means something, at least or honorable men. My side could not get Ukrainians to sacrifice their lives to get their independence from Russia. The Maidan Revolution was genuine.

Of course they want, and they already did it. Bad or good, but they always do it.

Hitler and Napoleon were stupid dictators like Putin. Biting off more than they can chew. Today's EU is not belligerent.

But sometimes wars are lesser evil. Actually, they may even hope that Russia occupation after the war will be better than some kind of Thirty years war. Say nothing that America could force them to fight Russia, as Biden did with Ukraine.

That is plain nonsense.

Watch "First strike" (1979) or "The House of Dynamite" (2025). And if we are prepared for your retaliation and attacked first, the number of casualties will pretty acceptable (lesser than 20 mln killed). More acceptable that the number of victims in the case of "uncontrollable escalation" or "unacceptable peace".

A First Strike can't prevent retaliation. An "uncontrollable escalation" is guaranteed.

Of course (30,000 Russian deaths a month) is nothing even close to truth. More realistic number is something close to 30k killed in a year. More or less close to death count in car accidents. Do you consider situation on American roads as a "meat-grinder"? I mean, you definitely don't like it, you want to decrease it, but without car traffic there will be much worse situation.

You don't believe Trump's number. OK, we'll see how long the war lasts with high casualty rates.

Plain lie. In the case of a regional war (if Russia is sure that America is absolutely neutral) Russia, according doctrine, will use tactical nukes. And Russia has a lot of them. Much more than France.

If Russia attacks NATO the US will NOT be neutral, we are obligated by Article-5 to fight with NATO, so you might want to rethink attacking NATO.

It might be disaster, but alternatives can be worse.

Nuclear war is always the worst alternative, unless you consider the effects Putin's SMO has on the Russian economy, the young men killed, and the lower standard of living compared to prospering without the war.

It's a fiction. In real life there are no flawless victories. You fight the war, and you have to pay the price. You just choose scenarios with minimal losses. Twenty million killed is "better" than fifty million killed, and fifty million killed is better than 100% of population genocided.

Yes the movie is a fiction, but the conclusions are real. There are no "minimal losses" in a nuclear war. Do not make decisions based on the flawed propaganda that "no war" means 100% genocide of Russians, that is a plain lie, total nonsense. No one wants to kill Russians unless the Russians are invading.

And, talking about fiction movies, there is a nice time traveling movie "One Hundred Years Ahead" (2024), and there is a choice between bright post-nuclear war (and the war included total destruction, with further rebuild, of Moscow) future in which Earth is controlled by Star Federation (good guys), or world in which there were no nuclear wars (at least Moscow wasn't destroyed) but Earth is controlled by the evil Pirate Alliance. Not that the protagonist has a lot of choices, the pirates want to kill him, and he fight mostly for his own life (saving Earth is just a nice bonus). I doubt that American censorship will allow this movie on American screens.

I'm glad that Russians have good movies to enjoy.
If a nuclear war happens the only thing left is basic survival in the radioactive rubble.

 

[Zavulon]

I disagree with that. Signing an agreement means something, at least or honorable men.

You are not honourable men (at least in the Russian understanding of the term).

My side could not get Ukrainians to sacrifice their lives to get their independence from Russia.

Its quite cheap to hire them. And $300Bn is enough to corrupt many people.

The Maidan Revolution was genuine.

The hell it was.

Hitler and Napoleon were stupid dictators like Putin.

They were smartest guys of their times. Thats why they were able to unite Europe, in the first place.

Biting off more than they can chew. Today's EU is not belligerent.

Of course it is.

That is plain nonsense.

A First Strike can't prevent retaliation. An "uncontrollable escalation" is guaranteed.

Just watch the movie.

You don't believe Trump's number. OK, we'll see how long the war lasts with high casualty rates.

High casualties rates will just force Russians to escalate.

If Russia attacks NATO the US will NOT be neutral, we are obligated by Article-5 to fight with NATO, so you might want to rethink attacking NATO.

You see, there is a little problem. The system "Europe do what America say, and America is defending Europe" is effectively ended. Now, Europe do whatever they want. And now America has the choice between strategies:
1) Europe do whatever they want, but if they get themselves in troubles - America don't defend them. It means end of NATO and "America first" exactly about it.
2) Europe do whatever they want, and if they get themselves in troubles, America will fight for them anyway. It makes Americans hostages of European politicians and makes America hired expendable muscles for the EU. It means end of the USA as independent force, or, may be, end of the USA at all.

What is more important for American decision makers - Europe or America?

Nuclear war is always the worst alternative, unless you consider the effects Putin's SMO has on the Russian economy, the young men killed, and the lower standard of living compared to prospering without the war.

SMO is going pretty nice (as far as I can judge) but America, suffering from inner disturbance and "crisis of affordability" may decide to escalate, either.

Yes the movie is a fiction, but the conclusions are real. There are no "minimal losses" in a nuclear war.

There are "lesser losses" and "larger losses".

Do not make decisions based on the flawed propaganda that "no war" means 100% genocide of Russians, that is a plain lie, total nonsense. No one wants to kill Russians unless the Russians are invading.

By denying the genocidal nature of our European friends you just decrease your own truthworthlessness.

I'm glad that Russians have good movies to enjoy.

We all are products of our culture, and it seems that its your problem, that you live inside some kind of pseudopacifistic and pseudoscientific information bubble. I mean, you don't even watch good American movies.

If a nuclear war happens the only thing left is basic survival in the radioactive rubble.

C'mon, you can't be serious. Do you know such town as Las Vegas, Nevada? There is Nevada Testing Site nearby, and there was almost one thousand of nuclear bursts. And what do you think, happened with Las Vegas?