Yeah, let's play a game

[Darkwind]

Where? Iran? VZ? Mexico? Cuba? Columbia?

Yes.

 

[kyzr]

If somebody looks like a Nazi (wearing Nazi outfits and symbols of Nazis and Nazi-collaborators), speaks like a Nazi - parroting Goebbels-style propaganda that Russians are Untermenchen (and could be abused, discriminated and, eventually, genocide), proclaiming himself as ideological heirs of Bandera and other Nazi-collaborators, and act like Nazis - killing Russians, including demonstrative mass murders, they are definitely Nazis.

Maybe what we call "want to be" Nazis, cheap imitations, but not real Nazis.

Yep. Of course, Satanists are (among other things) "anti-Jews" (and, widely, anti-human), but many Jews (according Christian and Muslim beliefs) will see anti-Christs as "True Messiah".
Like, there is a nice Muslim book (among many others): "The Army of Christ (Issa, peace him) in the battle against the army of antichrist Al-Mashih ad-Dajjal", one of authors - General-Lieutenant Alautdinov. In this book authors try to prove that true Christians and true Muslims should fight together against pure Satanic Western evil.

It goes back to Abraham, the common denominator.

Say nothing about almost open Satanism symbolic in the Western countries.

Satanism is not state sponsored, but there are very fucked up people everywhere.

And to be prosperous we should always kill those guys who tried to kill our people and steal our assets.

Who is that? The people who live in the walls? No one else attacked Russia.

It is different. But we, of course, worry about Poland and Sweden, too.
We worry about them, too, but it's not urgent now. They can wait a bit until the end of de-nazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, and after that, we'll continue our work with them, coercing them in Russia-acceptable weapon-control treaty.

After Ukraine, Russia will be bankrupt.

Germans elected Hitler, you know. And no, to be acceptable, elections should be democratic. There should be freedom of speech and other things. When Junta's goons murder everyone who said a word against "western choice" (and in 2010 most of Ukrainians voted for the Party of Regions), then elections couldn't be called "free". When Ukrainians had a choice between a Ukrainian Poroshenko, with his nationalistic motto "Army. Language. Faith" and a Russian-speaking Jew Zelenskiy (with his motto "Let's make peace and respect everyone's right") 75% of Ukrainians voted for peace and equal rights. But, after elections, Zelenskiy just said "f#ck you, fools" and sold Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Z is defending Ukraine from Putin's invasion.

Hardly. American dems are barely different from American Republicans. And, as far as I understand, they love conceptions of "more government" and "support disgusting perversions". But, if it is necessary for my business, I can use rhetoric for both sides.

Democrats and Republicans are very different, then there are "independents", voters who refuse to join either party.

Is Canada a sovereign country? Can Canadian Junta genocide English-speaking Canadians and deploy Chinese nuclear missiles? Oh, wait! They can't even freely make business with China and have trading agreements they want.

They can do business with China, but there are punishing consequences.

And no. Ukrainians sold their sovereignty on Maidan. Since they decided to become NATO's ram against Russia and Russians, they lost their right to be independent.

Ukrainians won their sovereignty from Russia, and are still independent after 4 bloody years of war.

 

[Zavulon]

Maybe what we call "want to be" Nazis, cheap imitations, but not real Nazis.

Not cheap. They are already pretty expensive for Ukraine and, looks like, they are going even more expensive for America. I mean, even 20 mln killed US citizens is a high price. Isn't it?

Satanism is not state sponsored, but there are very fucked up people everywhere.

And who exactly are those "very fucked up people"? May be, they are your informal leaders?

Who is that? The people who live in the walls? No one else attacked Russia.

NATO attacked Russia by their Ukrainian proxies. And, what is even more important, your government refused to continue New START treaty. The main goal of the treaty was decreasing the possibility of the effective first strike. If you are cancelling it, you may think about two possible goals:
1) Russia attacking America or 2) America attacking Russia.

After Ukraine, Russia will be bankrupt.

No. Russia still have enough of reserves and what is more important - Europe is going to return Russian money with good fines and pay reparations.

Z is defending Ukraine from Putin's invasion.

And Hitler was defending Europe from Bolshevism. At least it was what he said.

Democrats and Republicans are very different, then there are "independents", voters who refuse to join either party.

Anyway. Even if the logic of circumstances will force me to migrate in the USA, it won't be neither my circus nor my monkeys. I prefer doing real job to making politics.

They can do business with China, but there are punishing consequences.

Exactly. And if they start violent de-Americanisation, they will face violent punishing consequences.

Ukrainians won their sovereignty from Russia, and are still independent after 4 bloody years of war.

C'mon ... They exist only because of massive western support. They dependent on it pretty much.

 

[kyzr]

Not cheap. They are already pretty expensive for Ukraine and, looks like, they are going even more expensive for America. I mean, even 20 mln killed US citizens is a high price. Isn't it?

Nuclear extortion is the only card Russia has, and we aren't blinking.

NATO attacked Russia by their Ukrainian proxies. And, what is even more important, your government refused to continue New START treaty. The main goal of the treaty was decreasing the possibility of the effective first strike. If you are cancelling it, you may think about two possible goals: 1) Russia attacking America or 2) America attacking Russia.

We canceled START because Russia violated it, and China wasn't included.

Russia still has enough reserves and what is more important - Europe is going to return Russian money with good fines and pay reparations. And Hitler was defending Europe from Bolshevism. At least it was what he said.

Russia better take a break from war and focus on prosperity. I wouldn't count on help from the NATO countries for a war Russia started. Ukraine would get help, unless Russia captures it.

Even if the logic of circumstances will force me to migrate in the USA, it won't be neither my circus nor my monkeys. I prefer doing real job to making politics.

Good. I hope you are talented at something besides Russian propaganda and speech writing.

Exactly. And if they start violent de-Americanisation, they will face violent punishing consequences.

We help our friends and punish our (BRICs) enemies. What is wrong with that? Pavlov would agree.

C'mon ... Ukraine exists only because of massive western support. They are dependent on it pretty much.

The world supports their independence instead of being under Putin's vicious boot.

 

[Zavulon]

Nuclear extortion is the only card Russia has, and we aren't blinking.

But it is dawn good card. And it is not our only trump card. We have chemistry and biology, too.

We canceled START because Russia violated it, and China wasn't included.

I didn't ask "what excuse did you use?" I know it. I asked, what was your practical goal? Do you want to be nuked by Russia or nuke Russia?

Russia better take a break from war and focus on prosperity.

It seems to me, that in current circumstances, war is the only way to achieve prosperity.

We help our friends and punish our (BRICs) enemies. What is wrong with that? Pavlov would agree.

There are two wrong things about it. You've chosen wrong people for both your friends (who don't support you when and where you need them) and for your enemies.

The world supports their independence instead of being under Putin's vicious boot.

The world (more than half of its population) supports Russia, and instead of having equal rights with Russians, Ukronazies decided to lick NATO's jackboots. It was a stupid choice, but Ukrainians are stupid by definition. Smart Ukrainians become Russians.

 

[kyzr]

But "nuclear war" is darn good card. And it is not our only trump card. We have chemistry and biology, too.

Russia is China's sock puppet. China would probably love to see Russia and NATO nuke each other.

I didn't ask "what excuse did you use?" I know it. I asked, what was your practical goal? Do you want to be nuked by Russia or nuke Russia?

Neither, I think we want China included, with verifiable compliance, a real "treaty".

It seems to me, that in current circumstances, war is the only way to achieve prosperity.

"war to achieve prosperity"? That is what we call a "non-sequitur". War only begets devastation.
Your propaganda logic needs deeper thought.

There are two wrong things about it. You've chosen wrong people for both your friends (who don't support you when and where you need them) and for your enemies.

Life is complicated. We won't know the truth until a major war happens, which I hope never happens.

The world (more than half of its population) supports Russia, and instead of having equal rights with Russians, Ukronazies decided to lick NATO's jackboots. It was a stupid choice, but Ukrainians are stupid by definition. Smart Ukrainians become Russians.

Ukraine prefers prosperity and freedom with the EU to licking Putin's jackboots, and being called stupid Nazis.
More than half the world's population? You mean BRICs? We'll see when "push comes to shove" who sides with Russia.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia is China's sock puppet. China would probably love to see Russia and NATO nuke each other.

One way, or another, but China will be nuked in WWIII anyway. Even if China wants to be a beneficial, neither Russia, nor the USA can't allow them to stay away from the party. But yes, if Russian (or American) first strike is successful, both Chinamen and Europeans will be happy to earn some profit.

Neither, I think we want China included, with verifiable compliance, a real "treaty".

And Russia wants England and France included. But it doesn't really matter. The treaty was about preventing (decreasing the probability) the first counter-force strike. Neither China, nor France, can't destroy Russian nor American nuclear forces. Right now, given the strength of Russian nuclear forces (and nuclear industry), cancelling New Start treaty gives Russia more capabilities to attack the USA (and survive after it, suffering pretty acceptable damage) and attempt of coerction both Russia and China gives them more reasons to attack the USA.

"war to achieve prosperity"? That is what we call a "non-sequitur". War only begets devastation.

The first thing absolutely necessary to achieve prosperity is to defend your people, your assets and your territory. And organised killing of those who believe that they have right to kill you, steal your assets and take your territory we call "war". Without defending your people, your assets and your territory, i.e. without war, no prosperity can be achieved.

Life is complicated. We won't know the truth until a major war happens, which I hope never happens.

It will happen soon, and they already betrayed you.

Ukraine prefers prosperity and freedom with the EU to licking Putin's jackboots, and being called stupid Nazis.

Most of Ukrainians are not stupid Nazies and they have equal rights with Russians. And stupid Nazies deserves to be called what they really are (if not something worse).

More than half the world's population? You mean BRICs?

Yep. And Shanghai block, too.

We'll see when "push comes to shove" who sides with Russia.

Yep. We'll see who sides with Russia, and who betray America. Even more than half of Americans (according your words) are criminals and anti-American traitors.

 

[kyzr]

One way, or another, but China will be nuked in WWIII anyway. Even if China wants to be a beneficial, neither Russia, nor the USA can't allow them to stay away from the party. But yes, if Russian (or America) first strike is successful, both China and Europeans will be happy to earn some profit.

It won't be an American first strike. China is a big country, if you waste any nukes on China you invite a bigger retaliation from the US or NATO. Better rethink that first use idea.

And Russia wants England and France included. But it doesn't really matter. The treaty was about preventing (decreasing the probability) the first counter-force strike. Neither China, nor France, can't destroy Russian nor American nuclear forces. Right now, given the strength of Russian nuclear forces (and nuclear industry), cancelling New Start treaty gives Russia more capabilities to attack the USA (and survive after it, suffering pretty acceptable damage) and attempt of coercion both Russia and China gives them more reasons to attack the USA.

Nice copy/paste, but from where/who was that from? Link?
Then again Putin knows the more warheads you have the more it costs to maintain them.
START saves money for everyone, but it needs to be comprehensive.

The first thing absolutely necessary to achieve prosperity is to defend your people, your assets and your territory. And organised killing of those who believe that they have right to kill you, steal your assets and take your territory we call "war". Without defending your people, your assets and your territory, i.e. without war, no prosperity can be achieved.

Oh stop. No one attacked Russia, nor stole their assets, nor killed any Russians.
Russia invaded Ukraine to steal Ukraine's assets, take Ukraine's territory, and kill Ukrainians.

Most of Ukrainians are not stupid Nazis and they have equal rights with Russians. And stupid Nazis deserves to be called what they really are (if not something worse).

The Azov battalion was de-nazified. "Nazis" is Putin's propaganda...

Is there any truth to Russia's 'Ukrainian Nazis' propaganda?

Russian propagandists are constantly saying Ukraine is full of Nazis, and posting alleged evidence online. DW's fact-checking team has investigated some of this supposed evidence.

www.dw.com

Yep. We'll see who sides with Russia, and who betrays America. Even more than half of Americans (according your words) are criminals and anti-American traitors.

Americans fight like hell all the time, but when a war happens, we're all on the same side. You should know that.

 

[Zavulon]

It won't be an American first strike.

You say so. But if we're discussing actions, not meaningless declarations, it was America, who cancelled most of weapon-control treaties. It was America who deployed medium-range missiles in Eastern Europe, it was America who decided to build National ABD.

China is a big country, if you waste any nukes on China you invite a bigger retaliation from the US or NATO. Better rethink that first use idea.

Our first strike likely, will be against American nuclear assets.

Nice copy/paste, but from where/who was that from? Link?

Banned by Google? Ok.

Then again Putin knows the more warheads you have the more it costs to maintain them.

New START Treaty is not about saving money. It is about prevention of the first strike.

START saves money for everyone, but it needs to be comprehensive.

It is comprehensive. If you cancel it, you may have two possible goals - Russian First Strike, America's First Strike. And if you are not suicidal, your goal is latter.

Oh stop. No one attacked Russia, nor stole their assets, nor killed any Russians.

Plain lie. Ukraine killed thousands of Russians and was making preparations to kill millions.

Russia invaded Ukraine to steal Ukraine's assets, take Ukraine's territory, and kill Ukrainians.

It is pure self-defense.

The Azov battalion was de-nazified. "Nazis" is Putin's propaganda...

Is there any truth to Russia's 'Ukrainian Nazis' propaganda?

Russian propagandists are constantly saying Ukraine is full of Nazis, and posting alleged evidence online. DW's fact-checking team has investigated some of this supposed evidence.

www.dw.com

Denialism is a kind of support. If you denie that Azov (and whole Kievan regime) is Nazis - you are a Nazi, too.

Americans fight like hell all the time, but when a war happens, we're all on the same side. You should know that.

No problem. It just mean that you'll all go together when you go.

 

[kyzr]

You say so. But if we're discussing actions, not meaningless declarations, it was America, who cancelled most of weapon-control treaties. It was America who deployed medium-range missiles in Eastern Europe, it was America who decided to build National ABD.

America won't use nuclear weapons first. But we will keep an adequate retaliation to prevent a nuclear attack on America

Our first strike likely, will be against American nuclear assets.

Very bad idea.

Banned by Google? Ok.

Thank you for that. I think the main issue is that no one trusts Putin to abide by any "treaty".

New START Treaty is not about saving money. It is about prevention of the first strike.
It is comprehensive. If you cancel it, you may have two possible goals - Russian First Strike, America's First Strike. And if you are not suicidal, your goal is latter.

We'll see how START plays out.

Plain lie. Ukraine killed thousands of Russians and was making preparations to kill millions.

Nonsense. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons for security guarantees from everyone, even Russia.
How would they kill millions of Russians? Voodoo?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pure self-defense.

Keeping NATO away from your border is understandable, but if NATO membership is off the table, there is no reason for the war other than "conquest", which is tougher than Putin thought.

Denial is a kind of support. If you deny that Azov (and whole Kiev regime) is Nazis - you are a Nazi, too.

Oh stop. That is total Putin nonsense and you know it.

No problem. It just mean that you'll all go together when you go.

"we will all go together when we go..." So don't push that button...

 

[Zavulon]

America won't use nuclear weapons first.

Actually, it's not a part of your doctrine. Nuclear weapons can provide "stability" (which means that enough of us nukes should survive Russian nuclear strike and be able to cause "unacceptable damage" by retaliation strike) and "multistability" which means that America should be able to prevent extremely provocative behaviour by the ability to attack adversaries nuclear forces and degrade them to the level when they are not able to cause unacceptable damage.
For example, if Canada, allied with Britain (ruled by an anti-American government), decided to join China and deploy Chinese medium-range missiles, America will definitely prefer nuclear war against Britain to Chinese nukes in Canada. And in this situation, nuking Britain first (and destroying most of their nukes) is much better than allowing them to nuke your cities with all their nukes.

But we will keep an adequate retaliation to prevent a nuclear attack on America

Of course no. American doctrine also allow usage of nukes to prevent non-nuclear attack either.

Very bad idea.

Your ideas seems worse.

Thank you for that. I think the main issue is that no one trusts Putin to abide by any "treaty".

It is not about trust, and never have been. If you have the treaty - you can control certain facts, and it makes first attack less possible. If you don't have treaty - you can't control those nukes, and it makes first attack more possible.

Nonsense. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons for security guarantees from everyone, even Russia.
How would they kill millions of Russians? Voodoo?

No. By making alliance with NATO and giving their people and their territory to attack Russia.

Keeping NATO away from your border is understandable, but if NATO membership is off the table, there is no reason for the war other than "conquest", which is tougher than Putin thought.

It's still not off the table. Rutte said, that after start of ceasefire there will be NATO forces in Ukraine. And it definitely means that there will be no any ceasefire.

Oh stop. That is total Putin nonsense and you know it.

It is not and you know it.

"we will all go together when we go..." So don't push that button...

You will all go together. We will survive. Like in the new cover of the popular song "The missiles fly away slowly" there are two sentences in English: "F#ck the USA" and "I will survive".

 

[kyzr]

Actually, it's not a part of your doctrine. Nuclear weapons can provide "stability" (which means that enough of us nukes should survive Russian nuclear strike and be able to cause "unacceptable damage" by retaliation strike) and "multistability" which means that America should be able to prevent extremely provocative behaviour by the ability to attack adversaries nuclear forces and degrade them to the level when they are not able to cause unacceptable damage.
For example, if Canada, allied with Britain (ruled by an anti-American government), decided to join China and deploy Chinese medium-range missiles, America will definitely prefer nuclear war against Britain to Chinese nukes in Canada. And in this situation, nuking Britain first (and destroying most of their nukes) is much better than allowing them to nuke your cities with all their nukes.

Why nuclear war? We'd just tell them "you remove them or we will". Like the Panama Canal, get the **** out.

Of course not. American doctrine also allow usage of nukes to prevent non-nuclear attack either.

Maybe the only use of nuclear weapons would be in the "GBU-57 bunker buster" bombs to stop nuclear weapons programs.

It is not about trust, and never have been. If you have the treaty - you can control certain facts, and it makes first attack less possible. If you don't have treaty - you can't control those nukes, and it makes first attack more possible.

Treaties are just paper unless they can be enforced. (Didn't you say that the Budapest Memorandum was just paper?)

By making alliance with NATO and giving their people and their territory to attack Russia. (Ukraine could kill millions of Russians)
NATO membership is still not off the table. Rutte said, that after start of ceasefire there will be NATO forces in Ukraine. And it definitely means that there will be no any ceasefire.

Having a few NATO "peacekeepers" in Ukraine to monitor the Russian border is necessary to guarantee the peace.
There would not be any missiles or offensive weapons in Ukraine. You like "treaties", so why not trust a peace treaty that guarantees peace?

You will all go together. We will survive. Like in the new cover of the popular song "The missiles fly away slowly" there are two sentences in English: "F#ck the USA" and "I will survive".

Nice video. Let's hope we never see nuclear devastation.

 

[Zavulon]

Why nuclear war? We'd just tell them "you remove them or we will". Like the Panama Canal, get the **** out.

And they ask you: "Or what?" And they don't believe your - your deterrence type II (providing multistability) doesn't work.

Maybe the only use of nuclear weapons would be in the "GBU-57 bunker buster" bombs to stop nuclear weapons programs.

It's not what is written in your docrine. It's just "extremely provocative behaviour". We can imagine a lot of scenarios, in which the USA are forced to use nuclear weapons against strong, but non-nuclear enemy.

Treaties are just paper unless they can be enforced. (Didn't you say that the Budapest Memorandum was just paper?)

There were control measures in the New Start treaty. Now it's gone and the new nuclear race (focused on the achiving a reliable capability of the first strike) has begun.

And given the gravity of situation in your nuclear industry, it's not a race you can win.

Having a few NATO "peacekeepers" in Ukraine to monitor the Russian border is necessary to guarantee the peace.

No. There are only three things that can guarantee peace in Ukraine (and theynare necessary to achieve reliable peace): it's denazification (in the Russian understanding of the word), demilitarisation and neutral status. NATO forces in Ukraine can guarantee only one thing - the war between Russia and NATO.

There would not be any missiles or offensive weapons in Ukraine.

To have peace in Europe, there shouldn't be any offensive weapons and foreign forces in Eastern Europe.

You like "treaties", so why not trust a peace treaty that guarantees peace?

We don't trust you, and we have pretty good reasons not to trust you. And we don't want "ceasefire at any term" (because it just means that the war will be resumed in the worst time possible). We want lasting, reliable peace, and for this kind of peace, everyone should clearly understand that they shouldn't discriminate, abuse and kill Russian or steal our assets.

Nice video. Let's hope we never see nuclear devastation.

"Hope" is not enough. Right now, guys, you are doing everything to see it as soon as possible.

 

[kyzr]

And they ask you: "Or what?" And they don't believe your - your deterrence type II (providing multi-stability) doesn't work.

Maduro found out what "or what" means. So did Iran's nuclear program. So did ISIS.

It's not what is written in your doctrine. It's just "extremely provocative behaviour". We can imagine a lot of scenarios, in which the USA are forced to use nuclear weapons against strong, but non-nuclear enemy.

Never. No US first use, period.

There were control measures in the New Start treaty. Now it's gone and the new nuclear race (focused on the achieving a reliable capability of the first strike) has begun. And given the gravity of situation in your nuclear industry, it's not a race you can win.

We don't want a "first strike", just deterrence, i.e. MAD. It worked for 75 years, if its not broken don't "fix" it.

No peacekeepers. There are only three things that can guarantee peace in Ukraine (and they are necessary to achieve reliable peace): it's denazification (in the Russian understanding of the word), demilitarisation and neutral status. NATO forces in Ukraine can guarantee only one thing - the war between Russia and NATO.

Ok, so lets keep the war going until Russia had enough dying.

To have peace in Europe, there shouldn't be any offensive weapons and foreign forces in Eastern Europe.

Ok, they are defensive. No one trusts Russia anymore.

We don't trust you, and we have pretty good reasons not to trust you. And we don't want "ceasefire at any term" (because it just means that the war will be resumed in the worst time possible). We want lasting, reliable peace, and for this kind of peace, everyone should clearly understand that they shouldn't discriminate, abuse and kill Russian or steal our assets.

Ukraine is not Russia's. How long will it take until Putin understands that?

"Hope" is not enough. Right now, guys, you are doing everything to see it as soon as possible.

Nuclear war is a very stupid idea. We have other serious problems to deal with, like AI. There is a new book that explains it "If anyone builds it, everyone dies". A much more probable end to humanity than nuclear war.

 

[Zavulon]

Maduro found out what "or what" means. So did Iran's nuclear program. So did ISIS.

And what's wrong with Maduro or Iranian nuclear program? Maduro is still alive and perfectly safe until "his" WMD is found. And if Iran wants the bomb (they denie it) they can get it brand new from Russia.

Never. No US first use, period.

Wow. Can you prove it? I believe that authors of "COUNTERFORCE IN CONTEMPORARY U.S. NUCLEAR STRATEGY" know about US nuclear policies more than you, and, may be, even me.

We don't want a "first strike", just deterrence, i.e. MAD. It worked for 75 years, if its not broken don't "fix" it.

MAD is not technically possible and never have been. "Unacceptable damage" was. The threaties were made to make the first strike less possible and the international rules were made to make lesser pressure for attack.

Ok, so lets keep the war going until Russia had enough dying.

At the certain point Russia will either kill all Ukrainians (and all Europeans) either decide to nuke the USA and Europe.

Ok, they are defensive. No one trusts Russia anymore.

And we do have trust you. And if we say that we don't see them as "defensive" it means that you should roll back or die out.

Ukraine is not Russia's. How long will it take until Putin understands that?

Ukraine is a part of Russia, and if you need to lose more than half of your population to understand it - you will lose them.

Nuclear war is a very stupid idea. We have other serious problems to deal with, like AI.

You have a lot of problems. But our actual problem is NATO, and we are going to solve it or eliminate it.

There is a new book that explains it "If anyone builds it, everyone dies". A much more probable end to humanity than nuclear war.

Neither nuclear war, nor AI are possible "end of humanity".

 

[kyzr]

And what's wrong with Maduro or Iranian nuclear program? Maduro is still alive and perfectly safe until "his" WMD is found. And if Iran wants the bomb (they deny it) they can get it brand new from Russia.

Maduro is a criminal whose drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year. The Iran nuclear program can lead to nuclear terrorism, like you are suggesting.

Wow. Can you prove it? I believe that authors of "COUNTERFORCE IN CONTEMPORARY U.S. NUCLEAR STRATEGY" know about US nuclear policies more than you, and, may be, even me.

OK, I see your point. The US Military sees that prohibiting a first "counterforce" strike is old school thinking.
Politicians keep saying "no" to counterforce options since that can lead to a first strike.
The military's "war gaming" strategies are all very high risk, and if anyone pushes the button no one can predict the outcome.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-gpo221372/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-gpo221372.pdf

page 27 has a "Counterforce Continuum" table to see how fast or slow a nuclear war can be tinkered with.

MAD is not technically possible and never have been. "Unacceptable damage" was. The treaties were made to make the first strike less possible and the international rules were made to make lesser pressure for attack.

Whether you call it MAD or "unacceptable damage" its still deterrence.

At the certain point Russia will either kill all Ukrainians (and all Europeans) either decide to nuke the USA and Europe.

Suicide/genocide

And we do have trust you. And if we say that we don't see them as "defensive" it means that you should roll back or die out.

Why the bullshit urgency now after 75 years of "peaceful coexistence"? MAD works.
But I do see your point that if the US pursues a counterforce strategy Putin might get nervous that a decapitation strike might take him out. Your Oreshnik hypersonic missile kicked the counterforce race into high gear.

Ukraine is a part of Russia, and if you need to lose more than half of your population to understand it - you will lose them.

No Ukraine is not part of Russia. That is what the 4-year war is about. Escalate at your own risk.

You have a lot of problems. But our actual problem is NATO, and we are going to solve it or eliminate it.
Neither nuclear war, nor AI are possible "end of humanity".

Peaceful coexistence is always the better option.
Lets hope Putin dies or retires, so we can all get back to prosperity.
Wasting money on arms races is counter-productive.

 

[Zavulon]

Maduro is a criminal whose drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year.

C'mon, kidnapping people, simultaneously legalzing more drugs, isn't a way to fight a drug addiction.

The Iran nuclear program can lead to nuclear terrorism, like you are suggesting.

Yep. That's what you are asking for. Actually, even American nuclear program can lead to nuclear terrorism.

OK, I see your point. The US Military sees that prohibiting a first "counterforce" strike is old school thinking.

It's not "old". You strike first, you strike accurate and the enemy can't strike back. That's how any military planning works and will work until you want win wars.

Politicians keep saying "no" to counterforce options since that can lead to a first strike.

Trusting American politicians in such matters... C'mon, you can't be serious. And you are wrong. Congress approved a lot of counter-force options.

The military's "war gaming" strategies are all very high risk, and if anyone pushes the button no one can predict the outcome.
View attachment 1218553

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-gpo221372/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-gpo221372.pdf

That's what the planning (and any intellectual activity) is. It's all about predicting consequences. What will happen if we push the button and what will happen if we don't push the button.

page 27 has a "Counterforce Continuum" table to see how fast or slow a nuclear war can be tinkered with.
View attachment 1218556

Yep. Herman Kahn in his "On Escalation" describes 44 steps of the escalation ladder.

Whether you call it MAD or "unacceptable damage" its still deterrence.

Any deterrence can be weaker or stronger. From the "Minimal Deterrence" (in the case of well planned attack there is 5% chance of retaliation, destoying one city of attacker) to the hypothetical "Doomsday Machine" (however good is your attack, there is 100% probability of total elimination of the human life on the planet). Actual capabilities of the sides (may be, exept Russia) are more close to "Minimal Deterrence". 5% probability of destruction of New York, say, is "totally unacceptable risk" if we are discussing property rights on diamond mines in Central Africa, and "totally acceptable risk" if we are talking about secession of California or "forced de-Americanisation" in Canada.

If Russia decide to commit a well prepared (including Civil Defense preparations) counter-force attack on the USA, there are following opportunities:
1) Overoptimistic - America doesn't retaliate and accept very generous Russia-acceptable peace terms. Let it be 5% probability.
2) Just optimistic - America retaliates, but their retaliation struke is weak and badly coordinated. Less than 1 mln Russian civilians are dead. Russia bombs them until unconditional surrender. Let it be 20% probability.
3) Realistic - some things goes wrong, America retaliates, their retaliation is quite effective, it kills up to 10 mln Russian civilians. Russia bombs America into virtually total annihilation (America comes to something like modern Somali status with no more than 30 mln population survived). Let it be 50% chance.
4) Pessimistic - something goes really wrong and America retaliates by a strong and well coordinated strike. Up to 30 mlns Russians are dead, Russia use not only nukes, but chemistry and biology (as well as allies) and American population suffers total extinction. Let it be 20% of probability.
5) Over pessimistic - everything goes terribly wrong and the Earth is suffering combined catastrophic events - climatic changes, radioactive fallouts, new Ice Age, insects eating harvests, artificial diseases and so on... More than 7 blns of the world's population are dead. But well-prepared Russians has more chances to survive than anyone else. Let it be 5% chance.

And there are possible outcomes of the decision not pushing the button first:
1) Overoptimistic - western countries suddenly becomes smart enough to accept pretty generous current Russian terms without further escalation or economic coerction. Let it be 5%.
2) Optimistic - western countries accept Russian terms after Russia's allies joing the party. Russia surves as a minor partner of China. Let it be 20%
3) Realistic - situation falls into uncontrollable (by Russia) escalation and we all are forces into messy exchange of nuclear strikes without proper prepations. Tens of Russia's civilians are dead, NATO countries are depopulated, world is dominated by China and/or India. Let it be 50% of probability.
4) Pessimistic - NATO and China, united, attack Russia. Russian population (and half of the world population) is genocided, but West is not a real threat for survived humanity. Let it be 20%.
5) Overpessimistic - well coordinated attack of both West and East against Russia. Russian population is genocided, the world is dominated by survived West. Let it be 5%.

So, if we are talking about prevention of our genocide, the first option (well coordinated attack) has zero chances of Russian genocide, and the second choice - means 25% chance of genocide. Which is unacceptable.

Suicide/genocide

No. Not pushing the button is suicide. Well prepared attack is prevention of nationwide suicide.

Why the bullshit urgency now after 75 years of "peaceful coexistence"?

It is simple. During previous 75 years you were not invading Ukraine and killing Russians, you were more or less following rules and there were weapon-control treaties.

MAD works.

No. It doesn't.

But I do see your point that if the US pursues a counterforce strategy Putin might get nervous that a decapitation strike might take him out.

US pursues a counter-force strategy. This is exactly why you need Ukraine and East Europe. To get a good position for the counter-force strike.

No Ukraine is not part of Russia. That is what the 4-year war is about. Escalate at your own risk.

Ukraine is a part of Russia. Thats what the more than millenia of history is about.

Peaceful coexistence is always the better option.

For peaceful coexistence you, at least should recognise that Russians are human beings, that nobody can discriminate, abuse or genocide, and you should not make preparations for attacking Russia.

Lets hope Putin dies or retires, so we can all get back to prosperity.

Putin is just a talking head. May be there is no any real Putin at all. It doesn't change a thing.

Wasting money on arms races is counter-productive.

Of course no. You decided that you (including your Ukrainian hired guns) can kill Russians. It means, that you, are going to be destroyed. And to destroy you we, obviously, need weapons. It's conter-productive to kill all of you by bare hands.

 

[kyzr]

C'mon, kidnapping people, simultaneously legalizing more drugs, isn't a way to fight a drug addiction.

Yes arresting the president of a "narco-state" and destroying his delivery boats is a good start.
Trump will save 200,000 US lives compared to Biden's term.

Yep. That's what you are asking for. Actually, even American nuclear program can lead to nuclear terrorism.

So now Iran's nuclear program is stopped, a very good thing.

You strike first, you strike accurately and the enemy can't strike back. That's how any military planning works and will work until you want win wars.

Politicians prefer taking a "first strike" off the table, because some moron might be dumb enough to use it.

Trusting American politicians in such matters... C'mon, you can't be serious. And you are wrong. Congress approved a lot of counter-force options.

We are a democracy, we elect politicians to govern responsibly. Congress approved HR 3564, which allows a first strike under certain parameters. The president can authorize a first strike on is own authority.

That's what the planning (and any intellectual activity) is. It's all about predicting consequences. What will happen if we push the button and what will happen if we don't push the button.
Herman Kahn in his "On Escalation" describes 44 steps of the escalation ladder.

No one can accurately "predict the consequences". That's why MAD worked for 75 years.

Any deterrence can be weaker or stronger. From the "Minimal Deterrence" (in the case of well planned attack there is 5% chance of retaliation, destroying one city of attacker) to the hypothetical "Doomsday Machine" (however good is your attack, there is 100% probability of total elimination of the human life on the planet). Actual capabilities of the sides (may be, except Russia) are more close to "Minimal Deterrence". 5% probability of destruction of New York, say, is "totally unacceptable risk" if we are discussing property rights on diamond mines in Central Africa, and "totally acceptable risk" if we are talking about secession of California or "forced de-Americanize" in Canada.

If Russia decide to commit a well prepared (including Civil Defense preparations) counter-force attack on the USA, there are following opportunities:
1) Overoptimistic - America doesn't retaliate and accept very generous Russia-acceptable peace terms. Let it be 5% probability.
2) Just optimistic - America retaliates, but their retaliation strike is weak and badly coordinated. Less than 1 mln Russian civilians are dead. Russia bombs them until unconditional surrender. Let it be 20% probability.
3) Realistic - some things goes wrong, America retaliates, their retaliation is quite effective, it kills up to 10 mln Russian civilians. Russia bombs America into virtually total annihilation (America comes to something like modern Somali status with no more than 30 mln population survived). Let it be 50% chance.
4) Pessimistic - something goes really wrong and America retaliates by a strong and well coordinated strike. Up to 30 mlns Russians are dead, Russia use not only nukes, but chemistry and biology (as well as allies) and American population suffers total extinction. Let it be 20% of probability.
5) Over pessimistic - everything goes terribly wrong and the Earth is suffering combined catastrophic events - climatic changes, radioactive fallout, new Ice Age, insects eating harvests, artificial diseases and so on... More than 7 blns of the world's population are dead. But well-prepared Russians has more chances to survive than anyone else. Let it be 5% chance.

Realistic scenario should be more like 50 mln US and 50 mln Russians die in the first hours, then the catastrophic events happen

Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation, study finds

Just the soot from a week-long nuclear war would cause a "global catastrophe," researchers said.

www.cbsnews.com

And there are possible outcomes of the decision not pushing the button first:
1) Overoptimistic - western countries suddenly becomes smart enough to accept pretty generous current Russian terms without further escalation or economic coercion. Let it be 5%.
2) Optimistic - western countries accept Russian terms after Russia's allies join the party. Russia serves as a minor partner of China. Let it be 20%
3) Realistic - situation falls into uncontrollable (by Russia) escalation and we all are forces into messy exchange of nuclear strikes without proper preparations. Tens of Russia's civilians are dead, NATO countries are depopulated, world is dominated by China and/or India. Let it be 50% of probability.
4) Pessimistic - NATO and China, united, attack Russia. Russian population (and half of the world population) is dead, but West is not a real threat for survived humanity. Let it be 20%.
5) Overpessimistic - well coordinated attack of both West and East against Russia. Russian de-populated, the world is dominated by survived West. Let it be 5%.

Not pushing the button means peace and prosperity.

So, if we are talking about prevention of our genocide, the first option (well coordinated attack) has zero chances of Russian genocide, and the second choice - means 25% chance of genocide. Which is unacceptable.

Wrong. Even a well coordinated nuclear attack can't destroy the 1,800 deployed US warheads. Any detection of a Russian launch means we launch under a "use them or lose them scenario".

Not pushing the button is suicide. Well prepared attack is prevention of nationwide suicide.

Not pushing the nuclear button means peace and prosperity, any nuclear attack means death and destruction.

It is simple. During previous 75 years you were not invading Ukraine and killing Russians, you were more or less following rules and there were weapon-control treaties.

Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US.

No. MAD doesn't work.

We have 75 years of peace that says MAD does work.

US pursues a counter-force strategy. This is exactly why you need Ukraine and East Europe. To get a good position for the counter-force strike.

Russia is so large that there is no way to do an effective counterforce strike, retaliation is guaranteed, MAD works.

Ukraine is a part of Russia. Thats what the more than millenia of history is about.

The Budapest Memorandum says Ukraine is independent of Russia.

For peaceful coexistence you, at least should recognise that Russians are human beings, that nobody can discriminate, abuse or genocide, and you should not make preparations for attacking Russia.

Obviously.

Putin is just a talking head. May be there is no any real Putin at all. It doesn't change a thing.

Ok, 'm not familiar with Russia's Federal government workings. All I know is that Putin is a vicious dictator who kills his political enemies.

Of course not. You decided that you (including your Ukrainian hired guns) can kill Russians. It means, that you, are going to be destroyed. And to destroy you we, obviously, need weapons. It's counter-productive to kill all of you by bare hands.

We decided to help Ukraine defend against the Russian invasion, as stipulated in the Budapest Memorandum. We all gave security guarantees if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

 

[Zavulon]

Yes arresting the president of a "narco-state" and destroying his delivery boats is a good start.

Kidnapping a couple of old farts, as well as killing some random boats won't give you anything good. Especially given the consequences in the international relationship.

Trump will save 200,000 US lives compared to Biden's term.

Of course no. He just put Americans in more troubles.

So now Iran's nuclear program is stopped, a very good thing.

It is not stopped. And if Iran wants nuclear weapons - it will have it.

Politicians prefer taking a "first strike" off the table, because some moron might be dumb enough to use it.

And this is plain lie, either.

We are a democracy, we elect politicians to govern responsibly. Congress approved HR 3564, which allows a first strike under certain parameters. The president can authorize a first strike on is own authority.

Yep. That's why we can't allow you have your first strike forces in Eastern Europe.

No one can accurately "predict the consequences". That's why MAD worked for 75 years.

The deterrence more or less worked because: 1) there were rules and both sides followed them 2) there were treaties about certain weapons limitations.

Now there are no rules and there are no treaties.

Realistic scenario should be more like 50 mln US and 50 mln Russians die in the first hours, then the catastrophic events happen

Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation, study finds

Just the soot from a week-long nuclear war would cause a "global catastrophe," researchers said.

www.cbsnews.com

Only in the case if both sides play "Mad Butcher" scenario - "out of blue counter-value attack without attempt to defend your own population". And, however your clowns are playing "rationality of irrationality" ("we are evil satanists, we don't give a shit about American people, beware us") I believe in American democracy more than you. American decision-makers (from deep-state) prefer to save American citizens to killing Russians. And when, after Russian counter-force strike, they will face the choice - 1) to lose Alaska and California but save rest of America 2) commit mass murder-suicide and lose whole America, they won't choose suicide.

Not pushing the button means peace and prosperity.

Of course no. Not pushing the button means that the NATO Nazies continue genocide or Russians and eventually will kill us all.

Wrong. Even a well coordinated nuclear attack can't destroy the 1,800 deployed US warheads.

But it can destroy significant part of them. Significant enough to intercept another part of retaliation strike and decrease (in combination with evacuation, sheltering and civil defence) our losses to perfecly acceptable level, like lesser than one million killed. Actually even evacuation and sheltering alone will decrease potential losses to lesser than 20 mln killed.

Any detection of a Russian launch means we launch under a "use them or lose them scenario".

There are too many potential holes in your "launch under attack" conception. And a smart, well coordinated attack will try to exploit some of them. Even your own decision-makers see it.

Not pushing the nuclear button means peace and prosperity, any nuclear attack means death and destruction.

Vice versa. Live enemies means death and destruction and dead (or defeated) enemies means peace and prosperity.

Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US.

Ukraine is Russia. And if you and your carrion-meat want to discuss it, we'll discuss to whom belongs Alaska and California.

We have 75 years of peace that says MAD does work.

No. More than 60 years of our more or less peaceful coexistence were under treaties and following rules. Now - we have both reasons and capabilities to eliminate the USA.

Russia is so large that there is no way to do an effective counterforce strike, retaliation is guaranteed, MAD works.

There are ways.

The Budapest Memorandum says Ukraine is independent of Russia.

And Ukrainian constitution said that there should be equal rights for Russians and Ukraine should be neutral. They have changed it, we changed our position about possibility of Ukrainian "independence".

Obviously.

Not that obvious for you and Ukrainian Nazies.

Ok, 'm not familiar with Russia's Federal government workings. All I know is that Putin is a vicious dictator who kills his political enemies.

All you think you know, is just a pack of BS, which is not just "unreal", it is "unrealistic" even by the standards of American fiction books. Sauron in Rings of Power is more realistic than Putin in CNN-verse.

We decided to help Ukraine defend against the Russian invasion, as stipulated in the Budapest Memorandum. We all gave security guarantees if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

You gave some guarantees to the government of Southern Vietnam, too. So what? You gave them, you'll take them back and eat. Or we'll shove them deeply in your rectum.

 

[kyzr]

Kidnapping a couple of old farts, as well as killing some random boats won't give you anything good. Especially given the consequences in the international relationship.

Trump is saving more than 200,000 US lives compared to Biden's term by ending a narco-state and fighting drug cartels.
There are no international consequences.

Iran's nuclear program is not stopped. And if Iran wants nuclear weapons - it will have it.

Bad idea.

And this is plain lie. (that the US will never do a first-strike)

Politicians always swear the US will never do a nuclear first strike, even if the military plans for one.

Yep. That's why we can't allow you have your first strike forces in Eastern Europe.

Agreed, US first strike missiles are not deployed in eastern Europe...not sure what EU countries even have a first strike capability?

The deterrence more or less worked because: 1) there were rules and both sides followed them 2) there were treaties about certain weapons limitations. Now there are no rules and there are no treaties.

Just MAD

...after Russian counter-force strike, they will face the choice - 1) to lose Alaska and California but save rest of America 2) commit mass murder-suicide and lose whole America, they won't choose suicide.

...as soon as the Russians launch we launch. MAD works.

Of course not. Not pushing the button means that the NATO Nazis continue genocide of Russians and eventually will kill us all.

Not pushing the button means peace and prosperity. The only genocide of Russians happens in a nuclear war.

But a first-strike can destroy significant part of the US deployed bombs. Significant enough to intercept another part of retaliation strike and decrease (in combination with evacuation, sheltering and civil defence) our losses to perfectly acceptable level, like lesser than one million killed. Actually even evacuation and sheltering alone will decrease potential losses to lesser than 20 mln killed.

Russian military planners are doing such a good job in Ukraine that their 3-day war is now a 4-year war, so they should be aware that their miscalculations could result in genocide of Russians, about 50m Russians, and then it gets worse.

There are too many potential holes in your "launch under attack" concept. And a smart, well coordinated attack will try to exploit some of them. Even your own decision-makers see it.

What holes? We're taking back the farm land that China bought near our military bases, so nothing can interfere with our response. Subs are at sea on station, B-2s are always ready to scramble, and MIRVed ICBMs are safe in their silos all over the US.

Vice versa. Live enemies means death and destruction and dead (or defeated) enemies means peace and prosperity.

vice-versa. There is a difference between enemies and competitors.

Ukraine is Russia. And if you and your carrion-meat want to discuss it, we'll discuss to whom belongs Alaska and California.

Ukraine proves every day that they are not part of Russia. Putin just wants to keep wasting Russian lives for some reason.

No. More than 60 years of our more or less peaceful coexistence were under treaties and following rules. Now - we have both reasons and capabilities to eliminate the USA.

...and get Russia destroyed because they miscalculated a US response.

There are ways to do an effective first-strike on Russia.

We won't. Too risky. Too many lives at stake, not to mention the damage to the planet.

And Ukrainian constitution said that there should be equal rights for Russians and Ukraine should be neutral. They have changed it, we changed our position about possibility of Ukrainian "independence".

...so the war continues until someone loses.

All you think you know about Russia's government, is just a pack of BS, which is not just "unreal", it is "unrealistic" even by the standards of American fiction books. Sauron in Rings of Power is more realistic than Putin in CNN-verse.

Putin is a brutal dictator

Full list of Putin critics who have died in mysterious circumstances

Numerous critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin have died in mysterious circumstances throughout his reign.

www.newsweek.com

You gave some guarantees to the government of Southern Vietnam, too. So what? You gave them, you'll take them back and eat. Or we'll shove them deeply in your rectum.

Strange threats from someone who can't subdue Ukraine after 4 long bloody years of war.
We call that "bluster". (Loud empty threats)