Trump could consider that an act of war and take them out, you saw what he did to Iran's underground nuclear program.
NATO is strengthening its militaries, while Russia's military is bleeding out in Ukraine. Not sure why you think NATO is suffering?
One final act of desperation? You already said NATOs population is multiples of Russia's. So a nuclear war means the end of Russian civilization. A very stupid idea.
We call this type of exaggeration "Beau Geste". Propping up dead soldiers to make you look more formidable. NATO is not entering the war, 4-years of war shows that Ukraine doesn't need any manpower.
I post links proving my statements of fact. I speak freely, I'm no fool, and I'm not a "wishful thinker". You know more about Russia and Ukraine. Trump is trying to end the war but Putin seems intent on fighting to the last man, for nothing.
Americans need a lesson? The Russians learned a lesson when their 3-day war ended up being a 4-year war, and no end in sight.
When a dictator takes power most people are victims, not enablers. Whoever wrote the Russian constitution did not put adequate "checks and balances" into it, like limiting terms to prevent dictators from taking power.
So you say. We'll see how this all plays out over time.
You love to play your fantasy nuclear war game of extortion. But you always miscalculate the US immediate response. The US has 18 boomer subs x 20 SLBMS, 20 B-2s, and 400 ICBMs, a total of 1,770 actively deployed warheads.
I'd choose a 10x response, your move.
3,000 nuclear blasts would make a dent in normalcy, radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, crop failure, famine, death, the "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse"...
That's all he actually could do now.
Do you think that Americans do want to give Diaz-Kanel excuses for attacks on targets in America? More crimes you commit - more people in Latin America think about getting non-conventional means to fight America.
The US is also an independent state, we have the right to defend ourselves, kind of like the logic Putin used to invade Ukraine. The attack on Iran crippled their nuclear program. A win for world peace.
Not true. A state of national emergency does nothing to prevent an attack on the US.
You may know your "hemisphere" I know my hemisphere. No one wants to fight America, no one smart anyway.
Don't you? US nukes are aging, and C3I systems became more and more vulnerable to smart sabotage. And no. Right now in Ukraine we exchange 36 enemy's soldiers for every one our. With that rate we can fight not only Ukraine, but also NATO (who overwhelm us only 7:1).
Of course no. We have strong side - a lot of good nukes. NATO has a strong side - a lot of men who can be mobilised. We just not going to use our weak side against your strong side. We are going to use our strong sides against your weak sides (first of all, of course, your dangerous, but pretty vulnerable nuclear forces).
Of course they need. In few more years they are running out of adult males.
Really? Some stupid Goebbels propaganda?
So you say. Can you prove it?
Good. And I know more about reasons for this war and possible outcomes, too.
I don't know what he is thinking and trying, but his actions are absolutely in the same logic of escalation. And this game has only two possible outcomes: 1) The USA alleviate at formally peace time 2) The USA are defeated in war (in two possible scenarios: a) The USA accept defeat after Russian counter-force strike; b) The USA unconditionally surrender after counter-value strike).
Nobody thought that there would be 3-day war. Previous time liberation of Ukraine took 3 years but it costed 7 mln killed (and after it there were 20 years long anti-guerilla war. Before it, it took ten years. Time before it took 110 years.
There are no such things as dictators in the real world. And the difference between the "society of buffonade" (which you call "democracy") and "society of masquerade" (which you often call "dictatorship") is more cosmetic.
C'mon. Russia has pretty good system of "checks and balances". In recent three hundred years Russians killed and overthroned much more leaders than Americans killed and impeached Presidents.
Yep.
And there is a reason for it. America is not ready actually fight a nuclear war because of Ukraine and/or Europe. It means, that if Americans believe that Russians are actually preparing to a nuclear attack, America has a choice:
Doesn't matter how many nukes you have in peace time. What is actually matters (in realistic scenarios):
Patriot can't intercept Oreshnik.
If it comes to Poseidons (there are already more than 16 of them ready) attacking cities (actually, agglomerations), it means that the USA practically lost both coasts. Gigaton is roughly as larger than 100kt, as one Gigabyte more than 100 kilobytes.
You don't have 10x. All what you have is one survived submarine in Atlantic.
You can't be serious. All this environmentalistic and neo-paganistic crap is totally meaningless.
Ukraine attacked our allies - DPR and LPR. It was equal to attack on Russia. Cuba didn't attack neither USA, nor any of your allies.
Russia already suggested Iran to buy nuclear warheads from Russia. If they want nukes - they will have them. See no problem. Iran is much more responsible member of the international community than the USA.
But can he do it?
You have no any "hemisphere". We don't want to fight America, too, but it seems to me we don't have much of choice.
Before Putin attacked from Belarus in 2022 there was nothing going on in DPR & LPR, he just wanted to invade.
That is a very dangerous game. I'm not sure who we'd blame if those nukes ended up being used in a terror attack.
Guaranteed, but they might be better used as an excuse for regime change.
We have the Monroe Doctrine, since 1823, that says we do. You fight America means you fight all of NATO. A very bad idea.
Actually, Ukraine have been shelling DPR &LPR since 2014.
Sometimes reputation of a criminal helps you. Sometimes, vice versa.
In every conflict there are always two sides to blame - America and Israel.
As if it can change a thing.
And we say, that you can roll this doctrine and shove it deep in your rectum.
The US is developing AI and Quantum computers, Russia's technology is being left in the dust.
No one wins a nuclear war
Both sides will be running out of adult males. Maybe Putin can get China or NK to give troops to die in Ukraine?
No one knows outcomes yet...
This game has thousands of outcomes. But the most probable are Putin accepts a peace deal, or Putin keeps fighting until Ukraine collapses, or the Russian economy collapses. Putin is up to his ass in alligators just fighting Ukraine, if he attacks NATO he is guaranteed to lose, and he knows it.
We disagree. History says there were dictators...
You and Zelenskyy are comedians. If your government depends on murdering leaders to change policies, you need a better form of government. "Impeached" means "indicted", "impeached and removed by the senate" means the president is actually removed
If the US believes that Russia is preparing a nuclear attack, it would shift DEFCON levels accordingly.
I'm not versed on the nuclear war strategies. But I'm very sure that the US military "war games" the various scenarios.
Sorry, I meant AEGIS. THAAD might hit a few in the final stage.
But the Poseidons are in water, not at optimum altitude, so their effectiveness is limited. Still not a good outcome for a city.
I listed all of the assets we have deployed. We have 18 boomer subs, not one. Plus 20 B-2s. Plus 400 ICBMs, more than enough firepower to do 10x a limited first strike.
Ok, here are legitimate expert projections:
They are lying. Ukraine has to consript even young adults just to keep the numbers, and Russia still live more or less normal life, people are willingly signing contracts for a normal salary. Their calculated "risk premium" is doubled or tripled of average civilian salary. Not much. During second Chechen compaign, for example, a private soldier demanded a five times more than an average civilian salary. It means that personal perseption of expected risk in Russian Army is much lower than it was in the beginning of the second Chechen campaign. In Ukraine civilian jobs are poorly payed, many people work just food and protection from mobilisation, soldiers salary is high, but they still can't find volunteers. It means, that personal perseption of expected risk is much higher.
As I said, it depends on the definition of victory.
No. Russia won't. Right now death toll is more or less close to death toll from car traffic accidents.
May be. Why not? NK soldiers wanted some experience of modern warfare, some modern weapons and some money. We help them, they help us.
As I said, it's your wishful thinking.
Of course no. As in the USA, real policy is determined not by the clowns on the scene, but by the backroom boys behind the scene. And Russia has a "silent revolution behind the scene" at least once in three years.
And who cares about changing a president, if the actual policy is determined by deep state and old money, and they are not changing for decades?
It doesn't work this way. If it were, the nuclear war had started many decades ago. When your intelligence report that another side make escalatory move, you should decide should you escalate or alleviate. And in more than half times the USA alleviated.
If you have only one survived SSBN in Atlantic, your number of options is quite limited.
Yep. But basically it's not a second-strike weapon. First of all, it is a weapon of the first strike. When you have very vague information about position of SSBN (or a carrier) you just want to have as powerful blast as you can.
As I said, it is simply irrelevant how many SSBNs you have during peace time. What is relevant is how many of them will survive the first Russian strike and will be able to launch a retaliatory strike on them. Right now you have only two SSBNs in Atlantic and, likely, only one of them will survive. Exept the case, that the captain of Wyoming will be smart and lucky enough to win a duel with Russian attacking submarine, shadowing him.
Ok, here are legitimate expert projections:
Nuclear war could kill five billion in 72 minutes, but these two countries might survive: Here’s what the expert says
If a nuclear war breaks out, five billion people could die within just over an hour, according to U.S. investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen. She says only two countries—New Zealand and Australia—may be safe due to their ability to grow food during a nuclear winter. Jacobsen also revealed that...economictimes.indiatimes.com
Here is the "official" version:
What Would Happen in a Nuclear War? Effects, Casualties & Survival | Defcon Level
What would actually happen in a nuclear war? Detailed analysis of immediate effects, casualties, nuclear winter, and long-term survival scenarios.www.defconlevel.com
The truth will come out eventually, either Putin takes a peace deal or the war goes on...
Sanity says nuclear war is unwinnable.
Ok, so keep fighting in Ukraine. No need for a peace deal.
OK
My wishful thinking? Those are likely outcomes. A peace deal, or keep fighting until someone loses.
It proved my point. A 3-day war.
You just hate being proven wrong.
At least here we have "elections" and count votes every 4-years. It is true that the big money families have too much influence, but at least here there are two distinct parties, "more conservative" and "more liberal", one wins, then does a horrible job, then the other side wins, we keep flip-flopping from one side to the other.
Here they do change.
True. We won't launch first, but if someone else launches we need to be ready to retaliate. Use them or lose them.
You keep saying that we only have one SSBN. What happened to the other 17? They all weren't sitting there waiting to be destroyed. At least 8 are at sea on average. Or "on station" as they say.
True. I'm sure our military planners are losing sleep over dealing with Poseidons.
I never figured you for a "science denier"??? If someone launches, a response is guaranteed, and if more that 100 blasts occur, agriculture is gone. Only 100. That is the science. That is why no one launched. There is no winning.
There is no "peace deal" suggested. You just suggest us to commit suicide by allowing NATO forces in Ukraine. Of course, it is unacceptable. And, of course, unacceptable is idea that anybody "sovereign" or not can kill Russians.
It is not "sanity". It's just your common misunderstanding.
That's what we are doing.
Ok. We won't lose. You will lose.
You didn't. You just gave a link on someone's fantasy.
I'm happy to be proven wrong. It means I got some new information. It's just not the case.
And we have elections every six years. In both cases it is just a show.
There is less difference between them than between Coca-cola and Pepsi-Cola.
And this not correct, too. Just read US nuclear posture. It's not classified.
Right now you have only two SSBNs in Atlantic. USS "West Virginia" and USS "Wyoming". Others are in bases (and destroyed by our first strike) or in Pacific (and need days or even weeks to hit targets in European part of Russia).
No. Nowadays you rarely have more than 5 SSBNs at sea in any given moment, and half of them are in Pacific.
I'm not. I'm "pseudoscience denier" and "pro-scientific guy". Like, kinda, popularisation of science.
It is not. If you see that your response won't help you win the war and just cause some unnecessary deaths in Russia and virtually total annihilation of America, you might prefer to make a peace deal without retaliation.
And it is not true, either.
Ok. Let's play the game.
A few "peacekeepers" in the demilitarized zone shouldn't bother or threaten anyone.
Maybe in Russia, here elections have consequences.
Years ago that was true. Today democrats are communists and Republicans are conservative.
War Games.
You are an optimist.
Russia has an eastern border with the Pacific.. Plenty of targets, in range of subs.
A nuclear response is guaranteed.
That is what the link said.
True. But as I said before, there are always unforeseen surprises that destroy the best laid plans.
Nope. We'd detect your missile launches and track their flight paths.
Say 5 subs x 20 missiles each x MIRV warheads.
The US won't surrender, Russian cities will be hit by the US "Triad".
Because the Russians would all be dead.
Very few humans would survive a nuclear war.
No. They won't be allowed. Actually, "NATO forces" should roll back not only from Ukraine, but also Baltic states, Finland, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.
No, they haven't. Sometimes democrats take one group of your rights, sometimes republicans take another group of your rights. Just coordinated enslaving of the people.
Neither democrats are "communists" (for they are servants of big business), nor Republicans are conservatives (for example they praise a childless whore with "good genes" as an icon and belive in leftist environmentalistic scum (like Nuclear winter).
Dark Planet. Both Earth and Saraksh are civised societies recuperated after devastating nuclear wars.
I'm just better informed.
Not plenty, and, for most of them in Far East, those subs needs hours (or days) to take positions. And "hours" means that thise cities will be evacuated.
Of course no. Just read documents.
The link said garbage. Just some leftist environmentalistic propaganda. Do you believe them when they are talking about global warming or transgender identity?
Sure. Shit happens. But striking first is always better than striking second.
Not in the case of a well prepared sophisticated attack.
Ok. If Russians are ready, and their urban population is partly evacuated and partly shelptered, and even if you attack only cities you'll hardly kill more than 10 mln of Russian civilians. If you want to survive you should try to hit military targets, and the count of civilian losses will be even lesser.
If Russia attacked first and the USA won't surrender (or accept mutually acceptable peace), the USA will be eliminated.
Of course no. It is not achievable even in Mad Butcher scenario. You simply don't have enough nukes to kill all Russians even if you attack first and attack only cities.
You are still parroting leftist propaganda. Do you actually consider yourself as "conservative"?
Putin can make demands, but NATO won't roll back borders.
Democrats are criminals, Republicans are cops.
Who is the Republican whore? You are very wrong about that one.
Fine.
It says use a proportional nuclear response: "at the lowest level of damage possible on the best achievable terms for the US"
I would not say "better". Nuclear war means both sides lose.
After the fiasco of the Russian invasion of Ukraine from Belarus, I would not trust the military planners to "prepare a sophisticated nuclear attack".
I think the entire point of MAD is that cities would be destroyed if nuclear weapons are used.
If Russia attacked first, the US attacks second. Russia has a much smaller population, 146m.
Yes I'm a conservative. A nuclear war would have dire consequences, to say otherwise is to be a "science denier".
I didn't said a word about formal borders. I said about withdrawing forces, threatening Russia and respect of Russian human rights.
It simply not how it works (and not how the half of your population see it). They both has the same Inner Party of NPZR-community (and make their parties on the same islands), they both has same LGBT/greenpeace/diversity Outer Party, and the prols are equally meekly eat the shit given them by American corporations and Hollywood.
Of course it's not. It means that if you have a choice between "suicidal retaliation" and "painful but acceptable peace without retaliation", your decision-makers should choose peace.
Any war means that both sides lose. There are no "flawless victories" in the real life. But in every war one side lose more than another. That's the point fighting the wars.
There was no "fiasco" as far as I can judge. It was just a first (a bit clumsy) step on the ladder of escalation.
MAD was always more fiction exaggeration rather than actual strategy.
If Russia attacked first, it means that Russia is ready and America is not. And Russia has a much larger territory to evacuate.
Any war would have dire consequences. It is the way of life and death, after all. But for America and Europe consequences of the nuclear war will be much more dire.
I meant NATO'S borders, but "withdrawing forces" is easy, there are no "forces" except in Poland, who wants us there to keep you out.
NPZR? No clue. However you are very wrong. Democrats are city dwellers, we Republicans are rural and in the suburbs.
Sydney is busy making money. Currently worth $40 million. Her "good jeans" comment plays both ways, pants & genes, a joke. Every conservative guy loves her for standing up to the Hollywood communists, and she is very pretty.
You are simply wrong.
Smart countries find a way to avoid war, and grow their economies to prosper.
LOL. (laugh out loud). Now I know what you do for a living. You are obviously a politician, or maybe a speech writer for Putin?
MAD has worked, more or less, since 1945, no need to "fix it".
Like I said before, trusting your military planners is a very dumb idea.
We could wish for peace and prosperity.
Ok. We'll see. And of course, there are significant forces in Romania and Kosovo (which is a part of Serbia).
Necro-, paedo-, zoo-, rapists. Ever heard about Epstein files?
Two sides of the same coin.
And, in fact, there are all empty words for both "parties". In fact your Republicans are worshipping Satan, they have a Cuban migrant for secretary of state, they destroy law and inspire civil disorders, and oligarchs' has very little to do with "capitalism".
Her genes are not "good" neither in pure biological sense (for she didn't give birth) nor in racist sense (for she is "mixed race" - just look at her face). And if she is an actress - she is whore, and if she is a whore - she can't be loved by a "conservative guys" (in the traditional American understanding of the word "conservative").
If you can win a war - yes, it is. But if you can't (as in descibed example) it means that American decision-makers will prefer losing Alaska and California (and not retaliate) to suicidal retaliation.
Allowing anybody to kill your people and steal your assets is not a way to grow your economy to prosper. It's something quite opposite.
It never was "MAD". It was a "threat of unacceptable losses". And what losses are "acceptable" depends on alternative scenarios.
Trusting your peaceful words is much dumber idea.
Pushing a nuclear bomb to destroy, say, French and British bases, won't destroy civilisation. And then it will be your choice - attack Russia and lost the USA, or don't attack and survive.
Excellent post.
Thank you. I'm trying to do my best.
