Yeah, let's play a game

[Zavulon]

Trump is saving more than 200,000 US lives compared to Biden's term by ending a narco-state and fighting drug cartels.

Oh, my... Dark Lord Maduro, who solely have killed more than a million of Americans. What a gibberish! Maduro is just a little fish in the system (if he was in the system at all), and without taking measures in the USA itself, you can't defeat this evil. Kidnapping Maduro and his wife can't change a thing.

There are no international consequences.

There are. Even your closest allies became mych more US-sceptical. Say nothing about Russia, where certain amount of points were taken from "coercers" and given to "eliminators".

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

Don't give a sh-t. Everything American politicians swear is nothing more than a forest noise.

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

Right now France doesn't have reliable first counter-force strike capability. But Macron can sold Frenchies as Zelenskiy sold Ukrainians and attack Russia in suicidal counter-value attack. Say nothing about American middle range missiles deployed in Eastern Europe.

Just MAD

Are you a Christian (as you pretend) or an Environmentalist?

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

Just read NPP. It's not even classified.

Not pushing the button means peace and prosperity.

No. You already started the war. So we have either to coerce you into peace, or eliminate you.

The only genocide of Russians happens in a nuclear war.

No. Western Barbarians started their attempts to genocide us centuries before nuclear weapons were invented.

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.

And what is wrong with Russian military planning? Russia decided to start special military operation exactly because of western involvement, and the situation came to the "realistic" scenario - NATO support Kievan regime but not going to do something really suicidal.
American nuclear arsenal is well known to Russians, and anyway attacking first when we are ready and you are not, is much more safer than allow you to attack first when you are ready and we are not.

What holes? We're taking back the farm land that China bought near our military bases, so nothing can interfere with our response.

Are you kidding?

Subs are at sea on station,

Not all of them. And some of them are shadowed by Russian attacking subs, and some are controlled by surface "fishermen".

B-2s are always ready to scramble,

You can't be serious. Missiles hit airfields much quicker than bombers can even load the bombs.

and MIRVed ICBMs are safe in their silos all over the US.

Right now you don't have MIRVed ICBMs. Every Minuteman III missile has only one warhead. And no, silos are not "all over the US". There are only three bases and only 8 control centers. Eight (ok, sixteen or even twenty four) hypersonic missiles and you won't be able to launch ICBMs for more than a hour (and it is more than enough to kill them by ICBMs from continental Russia).

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

You said that you are our enemies. You hired people to kill us. That's why you'll be defeated or eliminated.

Ukraine proves every day that they are not part of Russia.

Of course they are part of Russia. As well as Democrats are part of America. You just hired some of their corrupted politicians. Defund them, open borders and you'll see how many of them are really want to prove that they are not Russians.

Putin just wants to keep wasting Russian lives for some reason.

And Russians are just too dumb to understand why we do what we do, right? Just a bunch of Judo-Bolshevicks, Mongolian bloodthristy barbarians and brainwashed goons?
By saying this, and, more importantly, thinking that way, you just prove another time that you are Nazies (nothing personal).

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

Anyway, attacking first is safer than attacking second.

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

If so, you should retreat now. Because Russia can win just by raising bets. But, of course, we can't rule out the probability that America is ruled not by "moderate Satanists" (who just peacefully sacrifice their own children to Satan), but by "radical Satanists" (who do want sacrifice to Satan all American citizens).

...so the war continues until someone loses.

And it will be you. The only question is what price will you pay for your defeat. Will be just Kievan regime, or it will be Baltic states, too, or it will be Alaska and California.

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

I don't believe in "brutal dictators" at all. Every man has as much power over other man, as he allows it.

Strange threats from someone who can't subdue Ukraine after 4 long bloody years of war.

Really? Man, you have been controlling in Iraq and Afghanistan territory for much more than four years. And how many male adult Arabs and Talibs did you kill? What happened with those states? And Russia already eliminated more than half of adult male Ukrainians. In few more years we'll kill them all and restore control over Ukrainian territory. It's much more safe for civilians to kill potential terrorists in trenches rather than in cities and towns.

We call that "bluster". (Loud empty threats)

And we say that we are not in the land-grabbing business. We are in the Nazi-killing business. And business is going quite well.

 

[kyzr]

Oh, my... Dark Lord Maduro, who solely have killed more than a million of Americans. What a gibberish! Maduro is just a little fish in the system (if he was in the system at all), and without taking measures in the USA itself, you can't defeat this evil. Kidnapping Maduro and his wife can't change a thing.

True, Maduro wasn't a major player in the fentanyl trade, but he was sitting on the biggest pot of oil on the planet.
Trump is a CEO who solves problems all day, like Iran, ISIS, those little brush wars, NATO's laziness, Russia's war in Ukraine, Cuba, Panama, China, Africa, Gaza, Greenland, India, Brazil, etc. the guy never sleeps, he's always working some angle against someone. Tariffs, sanctions, blockades, capturing tankers, bombing, whatever it takes. Arresting Maduro and his wife was a non-event, Maduro brought that on himself.

There are. Even your closest allies became much more US-skeptical. Say nothing about Russia, where certain amount of points were taken from "coercers" and given to "eliminators".

Russia always seems to bite off more than it can chew. Your economy can't support big ambitions.

Don't give a sh-t. Everything American politicians swear is nothing more than a forest noise.

True, but we won't launch first. Very bad for business, above all else, Trump is a businessman.

Right now France doesn't have reliable first counter-force strike capability. But Macron can sell out Frenchies as Zelenskiy sold out Ukrainians and attack Russia in suicidal counter-value attack. Say nothing about American middle range missiles deployed in Eastern Europe.

Never. Very bad for wine sales.

Just read NPP. It's not even classified.

NPP = nuclear power plant???

No. You already started the war. So we have either to coerce you into peace, or eliminate you.

Peace is easy, eliminating us means Russian genocide too. Don't push the button.

No. Western Barbarians started their attempts to genocide us centuries before nuclear weapons were invented.

Russia has centuries of baggage. In today's world genocide like "Attila the Hun" is bad for business.
Prosperity and wealth is the goal.

And what is wrong with Russian military planning? Russia decided to start special military operation exactly because of western involvement, and the situation came to the "realistic" scenario - NATO supports Kiev's regime but is not going to do something really suicidal.
American nuclear arsenal is well known to Russians, and anyway attacking first when we are ready and you are not, is much more safe than allowing you to attack first when you are ready and we are not.

If you don't see after 4-years of war what's wrong with Russian war planning, you need remedial war school classes.
Starting a nuclear war is the end of Russia. Don't do it.

Are you kidding?

No, not kidding. The devastating US nuclear response is guaranteed.

Not all of them. And some of them are shadowed by Russian attacking subs, and some are controlled by surface "fishermen".

No surface ship can keep up with a US nuclear sub. US subs are more advanced than the Russian death traps like the Kursk.

You can't be serious. Missiles hit airfields much quicker than bombers can even load the bombs.

True, which is why many are loaded and ready to scramble, because you only have 10-minutes to take off, unless the ABM systems work.

Right now you don't have MIRVed ICBMs. Every Minuteman III missile has only one warhead. And no, silos are not "all over the US". There are only three bases and only 8 control centers. Eight (ok, sixteen or even twenty four) hypersonic missiles and you won't be able to launch ICBMs for more than a hour (and it is more than enough to kill them by ICBMs from continental Russia).

The 40-year old Minutemans are being replaced by new Sentinels between 2030 and 2036.

GAO: Military urged to re-add MIRV warheads to mitigate strategic missile modernization risks

The U.S. military is planning to add multiple nuclear warheads to aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles to increase their deterrence firepower until the troubled Sentinel missile system can be deployed, Congress’ Government Accountability Office disclosed in a report made...

www.washingtontimes.com

You said that you are our enemies. You hired people to kill us. That's why you'll be defeated or eliminated.

Not true. We were doing business until you invaded Ukraine. Ukrainians kill Russian invaders for free. We didn't hire them.

Of course they are part of Russia. As well as Democrats are part of America. You just hired some of their corrupted politicians. Defund them, open borders and you'll see how many of them are really want to prove that they are not Russians.

Ukraine is not part of Russia. They were part of the old USSR, but that is now dead.

And Russians are just too dumb to understand why we do what we do, right? Just a bunch of Judo-Bolsheviks, Mongolian blood-thirsty barbarians and brainwashed goons?
By saying this, and, more importantly, thinking that way, you just prove another time that you are Nazis (nothing personal).

I'm not thinking or saying anything that isn't true, painfully obvious, in plain sight every day, Russian soldiers are being slaughtered for nothing but Putin's ego in Ukraine. No significant territorial gain, just wasted young lives.

Anyway, attacking first is safer than attacking second.

First or second, dead is dead.

If so, you should retreat now. Because Russia can win just by raising bets. But, of course, we can't rule out the probability that America is ruled not by "moderate Satanists" (who just peacefully sacrifice their own children to Satan), but by "radical Satanists" (who do want sacrifice to Satan all American citizens).

Russian Propaganda. We're holier than you, much holier.

And it will be you. The only question is what price will you pay for your defeat. Will be just Kiev's regime, or it will be Baltic states, too, or it will be Alaska and California.

Who will lose the war? Who can't capture Ukraine after 4-years of fighting and dying?

I don't believe in "brutal dictators" at all. Every man has as much power over other man, as he allows it.

Except for the GRU and SVR?

Really? Man, you was in Iraq and Afghanistan for much more than four years. And how many male adult Arabs and Talibs did you kill? And Russia already eliminated more than half of adult male Ukrainians. In few more years we'll kill them all.

There are 20 million Ukrainian males, 55,000 died in the war. Soon robots will be doing all the fighting for us.

 

[Zavulon]

True, Maduro wasn't a major player in the fentanyl trade, but he was sitting on the biggest pot of oil on the planet.

Technically, it's more "asphalt" than "oil". And even potentially biggest pot of oil on this planet (which you still need to excavate and deliver) doesn't worth even ten million killed Americans. That's why Trump doesn't occupy Venezuela and drill the oil.

Trump is a CEO who solves problems all day, like Iran, ISIS, those little brush wars, NATO's laziness, Russia's war in Ukraine, Cuba, Panama, China, Africa, Gaza, Greenland, India, Brazil, etc. the guy never sleeps, he's always working some angle against someone. Tariffs, sanctions, blockades, capturing tankers, bombing, whatever it takes. Arresting Maduro and his wife was a non-event, Maduro brought that on himself.

As if Trump anything but a hired clown and talking head.

Russia always seems to bite off more than it can chew. Your economy can't support big ambitions.

First - it can. Second - as I said many times before, we are not acting in the logic of conquest. We are acting in the logic of elimination of the threat. And in this logic - if you don't eliminate the threat, you'll soon lost any economy.

True, but we won't launch first. Very bad for business, above all else, Trump is a businessman.

He is just a talking head. His decision makers can decide that there is time to launch first. Let's play a simple game. British toffs decided to sell both Canada and, if necessary, Britain to China (for, say, a big stockpile of gold, fallout shelter and rancho in New Zealand). They are ready to escalate to the suicidal attack against the USA and ready to sacrifice the whole population of Britain. You have a choice:
1) to nuke HMNB Clyde (with two Vanguards) and with 90% probability attack the last Vanguard in Atlantic. It means that you have 10 % probability that one Vanguard will survive, 1% that some of its warheads come through your ABD (which will be perfectly good against US-produced missiles), and, if you are well prepared, only some thousands of New Yorkers will be dead (no of them state-essential).
Or 2) you start uncontrollable escalation and the Brits attack you first when you are not prepared. It means three submarines, 210 warheads, most of them come through your ABD, which was partly sabotaged by the Brits. It means death of many millions of US citizens.
Or 3) You allow China to take Canada and soon you have Chinese medium-range missiles in Canada which gives them a credible counter-force capability.

We both know what your decision-makers will choose.

Never. Very bad for wine sales.

May be, he'd like to start new wine business in New Zealand.

NPP = nuclear power plant???

Sorry, mistape. NPR. Nuclear posture review.

Peace is easy, eliminating us means Russian genocide too. Don't push the button.

Of course it doesn't mean. Especially if you roll back before our nuclear strike, accept peace deal right after our counter-force strike, or unconditionally surrender after destruction of some of your cities.

Russia has centuries of baggage. In today's world genocide like "Attila the Hun" is bad for business.

Some people, like Zelenskiy do good business of it.

Prosperity and wealth is the goal.

Yep. And to keep our prosperity and wealth we have to kill people who want to steal what is rightfully ours and kill us.

If you don't see after 4-years of war what's wrong with Russian war planning, you need remedial war school classes.

For what? As a person, I, prefer escalation and bringing the war in America. But I do understand (but not think it is right) the logic of "coercers".

Starting a nuclear war is the end of Russia.

Of course it isn't.

No, not kidding. The devastating US nuclear response is guaranteed.

No. It is not.

No surface ship can keep up with a US nuclear sub. US subs are more advanced than the Russian death traps like the Kursk.

Sensors, communications and computing became much more advanced in recent forty years.

True, which is why many are loaded and ready to scramble, because you only have 10-minutes to take off, unless the ABM systems work.

They are not. Safety measures.

The 40-year old Minutemans are being replaced by new Sentinels between 2030 and 2036.

GAO: Military urged to re-add MIRV warheads to mitigate strategic missile modernization risks

The U.S. military is planning to add multiple nuclear warheads to aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles to increase their deterrence firepower until the troubled Sentinel missile system can be deployed, Congress’ Government Accountability Office disclosed in a report made...

www.washingtontimes.com

May be. May be not, if you are destroyed before 2030 (which is quite possible).

Not true. We were doing business until you invaded Ukraine. Ukrainians kill Russian invaders for free. We didn't hire them.

Plain lie. You did hire them.

Ukraine is not part of Russia. They were part of the old USSR, but that is now dead.

Ukraine is a part of Russia.

I'm not thinking or saying anything that isn't true, painfully obvious, in plain sight every day, Russian soldiers are being slaughtered for nothing but Putin's ego in Ukraine.

It means that you think that Russians don't understand why they are fighting. But Russians do understand it. We are intelligent creatures.

No significant territorial gain, just wasted young lives.

We are not fighting for gaining territory. We fighting for elimination of the NATO threat.

First or second, dead is dead.

Of course no. The one who shoot first is the one who laugh last.

Russian Propaganda. We're holier than you, much holier.

In your own Satanistic system of coordinates, may be.

Who will lose the war? Who can't capture Ukraine after 4-years of fighting and dying?

You can't. And you couldn't capture Afghanistan in twenty years.

Except for the GRU and SVR?

Why? People in these organisations works voluntarely, too. They are, mostly, well motivated and smart guys.

There are 20 million Ukrainian males,

There are 20 mln of total population on the territory controlled by Kievan regime, two-five million can be conscripted.

55,000 died in the war.

More than one million is already killed, crippled or captured.

Soon robots will be doing all the fighting for us.

Or against you, which is much more possible, given the difference in production of America and China.

 

[kyzr]

Technically, it's more "asphalt" than "oil". And even potentially biggest pot of oil on this planet (which you still need to excavate and deliver) isn't worth even ten million killed Americans. That's why Trump doesn't occupy Venezuela and drill the oil.

We don't need to, the oil companies do, and Exxon told Trump "no thanks", they got burned 3x before.

As if Trump anything but a hired clown and talking head.

Not even close. True, he talks too much, and posts too much, and his ego is a problem like Putin's but Trump's bigger problem is that he doesn't take sound advice. He's getting older and his judgment is suspect. I hope he lasts 3-years more and doesn't make a fool of himself like Joe Biden...

First - Russia's economy can. Second - as I said many times before, we are not acting in the logic of conquest. We are acting in the logic of elimination of the threat. And in this logic - if you don't eliminate the threat, you'll soon lost any economy.
[Brits sell Canada to China??]
We both know what your decision-makers will choose.

We choose MAD.

May be, he'd like to start new wine business in New Zealand.

New Zealand & Australia should both survive nicely.

Sorry, mistype. NPR. Nuclear posture review.

It says that US missiles can withstand a sneak nuclear attack. So a nuclear response is guaranteed even with a Russian first strike. You don't believe them?

Of course it doesn't mean genocide of Russia. Especially if you roll back before our nuclear strike, accept peace deal right after our counter-force strike, or unconditionally surrender after destruction of some of your cities.

Better dead than red. Russia would be destroyed too. MAD works.

Some people, like Zelenskiy do good business of it.

Zelenskyy is just trying to survive Russia's invasion, he has no ambition to "kill Russians", unless they are invading Ukraine.

Yep. And to keep our prosperity and wealth we have to kill people who want to steal what is rightfully ours and kill us.

No one wants to steal your bowl of kasha

"Remedial war school classes" For what? As a person, I, prefer escalation and bringing the war in America. But I do understand (but not think it is right) the logic of "coercers".

The "give us what we demand or we blow up the world" folks will be sadly disappointed. The "grand planners" counting on a successful counterforce strike would also be very disappointed. Best option is peace and prosperity.

Of course nuclear war isn't the end of Russia.

Ok, so a few cannibals living in caves might survive eating rats and each other.

MSN

-These include the road-mobile Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile (400-500km range); the Mach 10, air-launched Kinzhal hypersonic missile; the Tu-22M3 "Backfire" supersonic bomber capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles; and the SSC-8 (9M729) ground-launched cruise missile, whose development led to the collapse of the INF Treaty.
-These platforms provide Russia with versatile, hard-to-intercept nuclear options.

No. It is not.

Yes, a devastating nuclear response is guaranteed, its called MAD for a reason.

Sensors, communications and computing became much more advanced in recent forty years.

True.

They are not. Safety measures.

Use them or lose them is also a safety measure.

May be. May be not, if you are destroyed before 2030 (which is quite possible).

True, there is a window of vulnerability, which is why the GAO, the Federal accountants, recommend going MIRV on the Minutemen until the Sentinels are in place, to guarantee deterrence.

Plain lie. You did hire Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of Russia.

The EU is the main support for Ukraine now, not the US.

It means that you think that Russians don't understand why they are fighting. But Russians do understand it. We are intelligent creatures.
We are not fighting for gaining territory. We fighting for elimination of the NATO threat.

NATO is not a threat to Russia, you are the one threatening nuclear war, not NATO, and Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom from Russia.

Of course not. The one who shoot first is the one who laugh last.

Your link says the US ICBMs can survive a first strike, so no one wins a nuclear war.

You can't. And you couldn't capture Afghanistan in twenty years.

Nor Vietnam either. We weren't trying to capture AFG, just eliminate terrorists.

Why? People in these organisations works voluntarily, too. They are, mostly, well motivated and smart guys.

...and guys who kill whoever Putin wants dead.

There are 20 mln of total population on the territory controlled by Kiev regime, two-five million can be conscripted.
More than one million is already killed, crippled or captured.

Still plenty of manpower to block Russian advances.

Or against you, which is much more possible, given the difference in production of America and China.

True. But Elon Musk designs the best robots, called Optimus.



The US military also designs good robots.

 

[Zavulon]

We don't need to, the oil companies do, and Exxon told Trump "no thanks", they got burned 3x before.

Ok. Neither drugs, nor oil were Trump's true motives. What was? He definitely has his motives (he is a rational guy, he cound't just throw $3Bn in a trash bin), he just doesn't want you to know.

Not even close. True, he talks too much, and posts too much, and his ego is a problem like Putin's but Trump's bigger problem is that he doesn't take sound advice. He's getting older and his judgment is suspect. I hope he lasts 3-years more and doesn't make a fool of himself like Joe Biden...

He is just a man. He definitely has his decision-makers from deep state.

We choose MAD.

There can't be MAD between the USA and Britain. Britain has only 210 nukes. It's not enough for "assured destruction" of the USA, even if you do nothing about it. And, whatever you say, American decision-makers are not monsters. If they have choice between 1) killing few thousands of British military (with less than 1% chance of losing New York) and 2) killing 100% of civilian British population with death of say, 50 mlns of American civilians - the chance that they will choose latter is quite elusive.

It says that US missiles can withstand a sneak nuclear attack.

They should withstand. And ships in Pearl Harbour should have been invulnerable to torpedoes. But you know enemies - they always ready to spoil a good thing.

And no. Partly survived nuclear forces should n't be used for meaningless murder (according NPR). It will be using for negotiations for better term of the peace. Like "We have not one, but five survived SSBNs, so we are ready to give you Alaska, but definitely not California".

So a nuclear response is guaranteed even with a Russian first strike. You don't believe them?
View attachment 1219599

Better dead than red. Russia would be destroyed too. MAD works.

I thought you are a Republican. And you guys are red, aren't you?
Anyway, after counter-force strike Russia won't demand your regime change. Russia will demand withdrawal of your forces from Eurasia, Afrika and Latin America, and some territory like, Alaska and California (may be Alaska only, if you have a lot of survived nuclear forces). And Russia will give you humanitarian pause of 24-48 hours for evacuation of your cities (and thinking about Russian peace proposals). And only if you retaliate most of you will be dead, and leftovers will be red.

Zelenskyy is just trying to survive Russia's invasion, he has no ambition to "kill Russians", unless they are invading Ukraine.

I know about Ukrainian ambitions and goals much more than you.

No one wants to steal your bowl of kasha

Plain lie.

The "give us what we demand or we blow up the world" folks will be sadly disappointed. The "grand planners" counting on a successful counterforce strike would also be very disappointed. Best option is peace and prosperity.

If you want peace and prosperity - you should roll back NATO forces to, at least, 1997 borders and give Russians equal rights and safety in Baltic states.

Ok, so a few cannibals living in caves might survive eating rats and each other.

MSN

In Leningrad daily food ration for workers was 210 grams of wooden bread (made mostly of sawdust) which is basically insufficient for keep a man working. But they have been working and making weapons for the Army, because the alternative was much worse.
And what would you prefer - eat your neighbours but keep fighting against "evil Russians" or accept Russian peace proposals and became Red? Dying is simple. There are much more tough choices in the real life.

-These include the road-mobile Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile (400-500km range); the Mach 10, air-launched Kinzhal hypersonic missile; the Tu-22M3 "Backfire" supersonic bomber capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles; and the SSC-8 (9M729) ground-launched cruise missile, whose development led to the collapse of the INF Treaty.

Actually, it were you, who started development of "armed UAVs" which are, according INF definitions "medium range cruise missiles".

-These platforms provide Russia with versatile, hard-to-intercept nuclear options.

Yes, a devastating nuclear response is guaranteed, its called MAD for a reason.

And what brand of sweet water do you call "Legendary taste" (or kinda)?

Use them or lose them is also a safety measure.

As I said, there are ways to kill them before they can start.

True, there is a window of vulnerability, which is why the GAO, the Federal accountants, recommend going MIRV on the Minutemen until the Sentinels are in place, to guarantee deterrence.

You have only four hundreds of W87 of warheads in storages. Not much of addiction, isn't it?

The EU is the main support for Ukraine now, not the US.

And you are still supporting the EU.

NATO is not a threat to Russia, you are the one threatening nuclear war, not NATO, and Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom from Russia.

They can't have freedom to abuse, discriminate and kill Russians. No one can.

Your link says the US ICBMs can survive a first strike, so no one wins a nuclear war.

They say. But in the case of smart attack - they won't survive. And no, even if you launch them, it might cause only "significant, but acceptable losses".

Nor Vietnam either. We weren't trying to capture AFG, just eliminate terrorists.

So do we. We don't want to capture Ukraine. We just want to eliminate NATO threat. And how many terrorists did you kill in Afghanistan in twenty years? Fifty thousands? Seventy? Ukraine is already running out of adult men.

...and guys who kill whoever Putin wants dead.

I wish it were that simple.

Still plenty of manpower to block Russian advances.

In few more years they will be all killed.

True. But Elon Musk designs the best robots, called Optimus.



The US military also designs good robots.

We'll see soon how good they are. Did you watch "Outside the wire" (2021) movie?

 

[kyzr]

Ok. Neither drugs, nor oil were Trump's true motives. What was? He definitely has his motives (he is a rational guy, he couldn't just throw $3Bn in a trash bin), he just doesn't want you to know.

The US economy prospers on cheap energy. The more oil (bitumen) in the global pot the cheaper it is, which hurts Putin's oil economy, so its a double-win. Not to mention the strategic win of getting Russia and China out of a foothold in the Americas.

He is just a man. He definitely has his decision-makers from deep state.

Depends on your definition of "deep state". Our definition is: permanent government employees who run things as they want, not listening to the newly appointed department heads. Trump has "yes men" around him, no one dares tell him "no" or they get fired.

There can't be MAD between the USA and Britain. Britain has only 210 nukes. It's not enough for "assured destruction" of the USA, even if you do nothing about it. And, whatever you say, American decision-makers are not monsters. If they have choice between 1) killing few thousands of British military (with less than 1% chance of losing New York) and 2) killing 100% of civilian British population with death of say, 50 mlns of American civilians - the chance that they will choose latter is quite elusive.

I didn't buy into that unrealistic scenario. The US and Britain are close allies. You can't dance around the MAD scenario.

They should withstand. And ships in Pearl Harbour should have been invulnerable to torpedoes. But you know enemies - they always ready to spoil a good thing.
And no. Partly survived nuclear forces shouldn't be used for meaningless murder (according NPR). It will be used for negotiations for better term of the peace. Like "We have not one, but five survived SSBNs, so we are ready to give you Alaska, but definitely not California".

Nuclear war is meaningless murder. No one escapes. The US would never give in to nuclear extortion.

I thought you are a Republican. And you guys are red, aren't you?
Anyway, after counter-force strike Russia won't demand your regime change. Russia will demand withdrawal of your forces from Eurasia, Afrika and Latin America, and some territory like, Alaska and California (may be Alaska only, if you have a lot of survived nuclear forces). And Russia will give you humanitarian pause of 24-48 hours for evacuation of your cities (and thinking about Russian peace proposals). And only if you retaliate most of you will be dead, and leftovers will be red.

If/when Russia hits the nuclear button the war is on. No demands, no concessions, just missiles flying and nuclear explosions.

I know about Ukrainian ambitions and goals much more than you.

Non-nuclear Ukraine is no threat to mighty Russia, are they??

If you want peace and prosperity - you should roll back NATO forces to, at least, 1997 borders and give Russians equal rights and safety in Baltic states.

NATO expanded after the USSR collapsed. NATO is a peaceful defensive alliance, it is no threat to Russia. Most NATO countries don't even have armies. If you are concerned about "Russians" in Baltic states, they should all be deported back to Russia.

In Leningrad daily food ration for workers was 210 grams of wooden bread (made mostly of sawdust) which is basically insufficient for keep a man working. But they have been working and making weapons for the Army, because the alternative was much worse.
And what would you prefer - eat your neighbours but keep fighting against "evil Russians" or accept Russian peace proposals and became Red? Dying is simple. There are much more tough choices in the real life.

This choice is easy. Avoid nuclear war.

Actually, it was you, who started development of "armed UAVs" which are, according INF definitions "medium range cruise missiles".

Trump wants China in any new INF Treaty, we'll see if any new treaty can be negotiated.

As I said, there are ways to kill them before they can start.
You have only four hundreds of W87 of warheads in storage. Not much of addiction, isn't it?

We have new B61-12s as well as cruise missile variants. 1800 warheads is more than adequate to ensure MAD.

And you are still supporting the EU.

We are allies. We support each other, and oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

They can't have freedom to abuse, discriminate and kill Russians. No one can.

Russians are in Russia. Ukrainians are in Ukraine. That's what borders mean.

They say. But in the case of smart attack - they won't survive. And no, even if you launch them, it might cause only "significant, but acceptable losses".

The US is a big place. Lots of space to hide silos, or to build fake silos, or to do other smart things to ensure MAD.

So do we. We don't want to capture Ukraine. We just want to eliminate NATO threat. And how many terrorists did you kill in Afghanistan in twenty years? Fifty thousands? Seventy? Ukraine is already running out of adult men.

A peace deal can prohibit NATO membership. Ukraine is winning the stalemate/zugzwang.

In few more years they will be all killed.

Not at the current rate, their kids will grow up to take their places. The war continues...

We'll see soon how good they are. Did you watch "Outside the Wire" (2021) movie?

Yes, good movie. Ukraine is very good at drone warfare. Russia is very good at defending from drone attacks.

 

[Zavulon]

The US economy prospers on cheap energy. The more oil (bitumen) in the global pot the cheaper it is, which hurts Putin's oil economy, so its a double-win. Not to mention the strategic win of getting Russia and China out of a foothold in the Americas.

There will be no cheap energy from Orinoco basin. And no, Russia and China are still there.

Depends on your definition of "deep state". Our definition is: permanent government employees who run things as they want, not listening to the newly appointed department heads. Trump has "yes men" around him, no one dares tell him "no" or they get fired.

In fact, there are a lot of people who simply say him "f#ck you".

I didn't buy into that unrealistic scenario. The US and Britain are close allies. You can't dance around the MAD scenario.

Only close allies can betray you. And no, Britain is your worst enemy. In fact they are anti-America. While Russia, China, Korea or Brazil are just "different", Britain is worsen version of you.

Anyway, you can change Britain on North Korea or Pakistan in this scenario.

Nuclear war is meaningless murder. No one escapes. The US would never give in to nuclear extortion.

Some people say that, any war is a meaningless murder. Or, they just can't see it's meaning.

If/when Russia hits the nuclear button the war is on. No demands, no concessions, just missiles flying and nuclear explosions.

I'd give only 5% probability that Americans will be reasonable and accept Russian peace proposals. I'd give 20% that Americans will accept 48-hours "humanitarian pause" to evacute cities. But even in most realistic 75% survived US nukes won't cause "unacceptable losses" to Russia.

Non-nuclear Ukraine is no threat to mighty Russia, are they??

No, they are. (As well as non-nuclear Venezuela is a threat to mighty America) Nuclear NATO is a threat anyway.

NATO expanded after the USSR collapsed. NATO is a peaceful defensive alliance, it is no threat to Russia.

Plain lie.

Most NATO countries don't even have armies. If you are concerned about "Russians" in Baltic states, they should all be deported back to Russia.

Of course no. Baltic Nazies should be deported to Canada and Argentina.

This choice is easy. Avoid nuclear war.

If you really want to avoid nuclear war (which I doubt very much) - you should roll back NATO forces back to 1997 borders.

Trump wants China in any new INF Treaty, we'll see if any new treaty can be negotiated.

He has nothing to suggest for those negotiations. And, anyway, China doesn't posses reliable first strike capability. So, those are empty talks. The only logical explanation is simple: America wants to start a nuclear war on Russia by sudden counter-force strike.

We have new B61-12s as well as cruise missile variants. 1800 warheads is more than adequate to ensure MAD.

Its definitely not enough if we are talking about World War scenario (the world is big and there are much more than 180 cities), say nothing that in any realistic (not-suicudal) scenario most of those nukes will be necessarily used to eliminate enemy's nukes or will be eliminated by enemy's nukes.

We are allies. We support each other, and oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Bla-bla-bla. How many of them supported your pressure on Latin America or Middle East?

Russians are in Russia. Ukrainians are in Ukraine. That's what borders mean.

C'mon. As if there are no Russians, or Jews, or Irish, or Mexicans in the USA.

The US is a big place. Lots of space to hide silos, or to build fake silos, or to do other smart things to ensure MAD.

For every measure there can be a counter-measure. And no, with your economy you can't afford anything really expensive (or even cheap).

 

[kyzr]

There will be no cheap energy from Orinoco basin. And no, Russia and China are still there.

VZ bitumen is about the same "break even" as Canadian oil sand's bitumen, say $50/bbl. Not cheap, but not bad.

In fact, there are a lot of people who simply say to Trump "f#ck you".

Not if they work for him. They would be unemployed.

Only close allies can betray you. And no, Britain is your worst enemy. In fact they are anti-America. While Russia, China, Korea or Brazil are just "different", Britain is worse version of you.
Anyway, you can change Britain on North Korea or Pakistan in this scenario.

I have better scenarios. Riddle me this, what would happen if:
1. The "House of Dynamite" happened over Russia but with an EMP, frying all of your electronics.

2. The same unidentified missile came from some ocean and put an EMP over the US.

Some people say that, any war is a meaningless murder. Or, they just can't see it's meaning.

I agree that any negotiated peace deal is better than an uncontrollable war.

I'd give only 5% probability that Americans will be reasonable and accept Russian peace proposals. I'd give 20% that Americans will accept 48-hours "humanitarian pause" to evacuate cities. But even in most realistic 75% survived US nukes won't cause "unacceptable losses" to Russia.

LOL. The US is NOT Tora-Bora where "time outs" happen during a battle.
The death and devastation would be unimaginable, so stop "war gaming" it like it's no big deal.

No, they are. (As well as non-nuclear Venezuela is a threat to mighty America) Nuclear NATO is a threat anyway.

Ok, there are very different degrees of "threats". Lets say VZ is not an "existential threat" to the US , as non-nuclear Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia.

Plain lie.

Ok, well NATO is no threat to "a peaceful" Russia. NATO will not attack Russia first. Russia has lots of nukes.

Of course not. Baltic Nazis should be deported to Canada and Argentina.

Baltic COUNTRIES have borders and sovereignty.
IF Russian agitators act up they should be deported back to Russia.

If you really want to avoid nuclear war (which I doubt very much) - you should roll back NATO forces back to 1997 borders.

Never happen. Maybe Russia should try living in peace instead of threatening war?

He has nothing to suggest for those negotiations. And, anyway, China doesn't possess reliable first strike capability. So, those are empty talks. The only logical explanation is simple: America wants to start a nuclear war on Russia by sudden counter-force strike.

Russia is the one "sabre-rattling" with their first-strike weapons, like Poseidon, Oreshnik, and being very sneaky.

Its definitely not enough if we are talking about World War scenario (the world is big and there are much more than 180 cities), say nothing that in any realistic (not-suicidal) scenario most of those nukes will be necessarily used to eliminate enemy's nukes or will be eliminated by enemy's nukes.

You can think that but there are always "unknown unknowns" to deal with. Not a prosperous Russia after a nuclear war, just death and devastation and no food..

Bla-bla-bla. How many of the EU supports your pressure on Latin America or Middle East?

Rutte, the director of NATO supports the US. No one seriously opposes the US in our hemisphere, the middle east is a puss case, always has been. Its up to the Sauds and Qataris, and UAE and Kuwait, and the other oil rich countries to deal with it. We're there to keep Iran from becoming nuclear and setting the region on fire.

C'mon. As if there are no Russians, or Jews, or Irish, or Mexicans in the USA.

See, this is EXACTLY the issue. IF there are any Russians, Irish, or Mexicans in the US they are here as "guests" on temporary visas. If they don't leave they will be deported. If there are any "nationalists" who fight for their "rights" and demand concessions, they will be arrested and imprisoned or deported, period.

For every measure there can be a counter-measure. And no, with your economy you can't afford anything really expensive (or even cheap).

True. For EMPs there are counter measures.

The US economy can't afford something?? C'mon man.
Russia's GDP is $2.54T. and Russia's 2025 military budget was $161b, much less after war spending...

The US GDP was $31T and the 2025 military budget was $850b.

 

[Zavulon]

VZ bitumen is about the same "break even" as Canadian oil sand's bitumen, say $50/bbl. Not cheap, but not bad.

Given undeveloped infrastructure and military risks, you'll need prolonged situation with crude oil price higher than $100 to make it somehow profitable.

Therefore neither drugs, nor oil were Trump's main motivations. What was?

Not if they work for him. They would be unemployed.

Most of "his" people were hired by Congress or Deep State.

I have better scenarios.

Does it mean, that you understood that there is no any Mutual Assured Destruction in pairs USA-Britain (or, if you wish, USA-North Korea)?

Riddle me this, what would happen if:
1. The "House of Dynamite" happened over Russia but with an EMP, frying all of your electronics.

Russia is big, Russia is northern country, so, it's quite difficult to fry all electronic in all country.

Russia is big, Russia is pretty northern state. It's geometrically impossible to fry electricity in the whole Russia by one charge, and most of military-grade equipment is well protected against EMP. Highly unlikely that Russia will see it as an attack on C3I system, most likely, Russia will see it as a preparation to mostly-conventional attack from European NATO members, and after some time of negotiations and investigations will nuke French and British nuclear bases and most important NATO military bases in Central and Eastern Europe.

2. The same unidentified missile came from some ocean and put an EMP over the US.

Is it continue of previous scenario or entirely new game?

I agree that any negotiated peace deal is better than an uncontrollable war.

If so, roll back to 1997 borders.

LOL. The US is NOT Tora-Bora where "time outs" happen during a battle.
The death and devastation would be unimaginable, so stop "war gaming" it like it's no big deal.

The issue is, that it will be not only "imaginable" but "well calculated and preplaned".
Putin will send a video like: "My dear Americans, your Deep State Satanists have been in cahoots to attack Russia (and we have proves) without even attempting to protect American people. Is was an act of pure self-defense, we were forced to destroy your nuclear forces, or, at least decrease their ability to kill Russians and Americans. We have been avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible, so, all our warheads are light, low-yield but highly precise. We don't want to kill civilians. We do want to stop violence at this point. As an act of good will we give you two days to leave military bases, industrial centers, big cities if your government doesn't attack our cities and start negotiations. If you live in Montana, Wyoming or Dacota states you better to leave them or hide in shelters before fallouts happen. Warheads will start hitting your military targets in few minutes. God save you, and remember - we don't want to kill Americans, we only want to save Russians. Demand peace negotiations from your leaders". And after this speech there is, I believe, at least 20% chance that Americans will not retaliate in two days.

Ok, there are very different degrees of "threats". Lets say VZ is not an "existential threat" to the US , as non-nuclear Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia.

Cuba with Russian ballistic missiles was an existential threat to the USA, Venezuela with WMD is not existential, but significant threat (and might become existential). Ukraine as a part of NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Actually, even American middle range missiles in Eastern Europe are seen as potentially existential threat to Russia.

Ok, well NATO is no threat to "a peaceful" Russia.

Of course, NATO is. It's NATO habit to attack peaceful states.

NATO will not attack Russia first.

Because Russia will attack NATO first.

Russia has lots of nukes.

Yep. And you seems forgot about it.

Baltic COUNTRIES have borders and sovereignty.

They have sovereignity only if they don't discriminate Russians and don't create threats to Russia. Otherwise (which is most likely) they are going to lose it.

IF Russian agitators act up they should be deported back to Russia.

They live there for generations. And if they come back to Russia, they will take their houses and their land with them.

Never happen. Maybe Russia should try living in peace instead of threatening war?

Iraq, Lybia, Serbia and many others tried. And what happened with them? No. America and Europe understand only one language - the threat of total annihilation. So, either you roll back, either you are eliminated.

Russia is the one "sabre-rattling" with their first-strike weapons, like Poseidon, Oreshnik, and being very sneaky.

It's not sabre-rattling. We just said that your actions are leading you to total annihilation.

You can think that but there are always "unknown unknowns" to deal with.

There are "unknown unknowns", of course, but there are also "positively certain knowns":
1) Western Barbarians already started their regular Drung nach Osten.
2) If they are not stopped or eliminated - they will kill all of us.
3) We can't kill them all without nuclear weapons.
4) To minimise our own losses we should destroy as many their nuclear weapons as we can (avoiding killing civilians) and suggest them, one more time, roll back.
5) If they refuse (and, most likely, they will refuse) we should nuke them into inability to harm us.

Not a prosperous Russia after a nuclear war, just death and devastation and no food..

Really? We'll take our chances. In the worst case we'll take you with ourselves, in the best case - we'll have peace and prosperity.

See, this is EXACTLY the issue. IF there are any Russians, Irish, or Mexicans in the US they are here as "guests" on temporary visas. If they don't leave they will be deported. If there are any "nationalists" who fight for their "rights" and demand concessions, they will be arrested and imprisoned or deported, period.

But this is not how your people actually see it. There are a lot of US citizens who see themselves as Russians, Jews, Mexicans, Dacota, Armenians and many others.
My cousin said, that in Ukraine he was a Jew, and in Israel he became a Russian.
Anyway, when Latvia, Litva and Estonia were parts of Russia, Lithuanias, Latvians and Estonians didn't see themselves as Russians either. And don't forget that Albanians in Kosovo didn't see themselves as Serbs.

The US economy can't afford something?? C'mon man.

Yep. There is a "crisis of affordability ", they say.

Russia's GDP is $2.54T. and Russia's 2025 military budget was $161b, much less after war spending...

The US GDP was $31T and the 2025 military budget was $850b.

You see, virtual ones and zeroes in bank computers has very little to do with actual capabilities to make proper weapons. What is even more important, American system is not supposed to be effective. Everyone wants to steal few bucks from every deal.

 

[kyzr]

Given undeveloped infrastructure and military risks, you'll need prolonged situation with crude oil price higher than $100 to make it somehow profitable.

Oil companies will figure out how to make a profit, no worries. They have very smart engineers.

Therefore neither drugs, nor oil were Trump's main motivations. What was?

Many reasons. Oil, drugs, keeping Russia & China out, sanctioning Cuba, enforcing sanctions on oil tankers, showing Columbia what could happen, flexing US military muscle, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, and just enforcing US Law by arresting a criminal.

Does it mean, that you understood that there is not any Mutual Assured Destruction in pairs USA-Britain (or, if you wish, USA-North Korea)?

MAD affects NATO countries because of Article 5, if Russia nukes a NATO country they should all nuke Russia.

Russia is big, Russia is pretty northern state. It's geometrically impossible to fry electricity in the whole Russia by one charge, and most of military-grade equipment is well protected against EMP. Highly unlikely that Russia will see it as an attack on C3I system, most likely, Russia will see it as a preparation to mostly-conventional attack from European NATO members, and after some time of negotiations and investigations will nuke French and British nuclear bases and most important NATO military bases in Central and Eastern Europe.

True, an EMP would only have effects in the target area.

Is it continue of previous scenario or entirely new game?

I was thinking of a new war game scenario, with EMPs. The point I would make is that to be effective an EMP would need to have an exact location in space, an area easily defended. So EMPs are not a guaranteed outcome.

The issue is, that it will be not only "imaginable" but "well calculated and preplanned".
Putin will send a video like: "My dear Americans, your Deep State Satanists have been in cahoots to attack Russia (and we have proves) without even attempting to protect American people. Is was an act of pure self-defense, we were forced to destroy your nuclear forces, or, at least decrease their ability to kill Russians and Americans. We have been avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible, so, all our warheads are light, low-yield but highly precise. We don't want to kill civilians. We do want to stop violence at this point. As an act of good will we give you two days to leave military bases, industrial centers, big cities if your government doesn't attack our cities and start negotiations. If you live in Montana, Wyoming or Dakota states you better to leave them or hide in shelters before fallout happens. Warheads will start hitting your military targets in few minutes. God save you, and remember - we don't want to kill Americans, we only want to save Russians. Demand peace negotiations from your leaders". And after this speech there is, I believe, at least 20% chance that Americans will not retaliate in two days.

We call that a clown show. Hit the button whenever you want millions of Russians dead.

Cuba with Russian ballistic missiles was an existential threat to the USA, Venezuela with WMD is not existential, but significant threat (and might become existential). Ukraine as a part of NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Actually, even American middle range missiles in Eastern Europe are seen as potentially existential threat to Russia.

Focusing on Ukraine is so stupid. With the nuclear arsenals we have pointed at each other, to whine about a few more missiles here or there is ridiculous. Instead of Ukraine, how about Sweden? Or, Sweden, Finland, and Norway? Or how about in all of the NATO countries that border Russia?

Of course, NATO is a threat to Russia. It's NATO habit to attack peaceful states.

Not true. Name them.

Because Russia will attack NATO first.

Very bad idea.

They have sovereignty only if they don't discriminate Russians and don't create threats to Russia. Otherwise (which is most likely) they are going to lose it.

They have sovereignty no matter what Russia says. Its their country, that's what sovereignty means.

They live there for generations. And if they come back to Russia, they will take their houses and their land with them.

If they agitate they could get deported or end up in prison.

Iraq, Libya, Serbia and many others tried. And what happened with them? No. America and Europe understand only one language - the threat of total annihilation. So, either you roll back, either you are eliminated.

Big talk. NATO is an alliance of countries, their borders are where they are. Russia can't make demands to NATO.

It's not sabre-rattling. We just said that your actions are leading you to total annihilation.

We'll see how it turns out, buy lots of popcorn

There are "unknown unknowns", of course, but there are also "positively certain knowns":
1) Western Barbarians already started their regular Drung nach Osten. (drive to the east)
2) If they are not stopped or eliminated - they will kill all of us.
3) We can't kill them all without nuclear weapons.
4) To minimize our own losses we should destroy as many their nuclear weapons as we can (avoiding killing civilians) and suggest them, one more time, roll back.
5) If they refuse (and, most likely, they will refuse) we should nuke them into inability to harm us.

Like a ******* 6-year old playing with a loaded gun. So casually discussing nuclear annihilation.

We'll take our chances with nuclear war. In the worst case we'll take you with ourselves, in the best case - we'll have peace and prosperity.

No peace and prosperity, just death.

But this is not how your people actually see it. There are a lot of US citizens who see themselves as Russians, Jews, Mexicans, Dakota, Armenians and many others.

Here in the US we are all Americans, no matter where our ancestors came from.
Our motto is "E Pluribus Unum". (from many...One).
In Europe and Russia there are centuries of ethnic cleansing and moving borders and languages and dialects that we don't have here. It takes about 3-generations of inter-marrying to lose all connections to their "country of origin". The US has been described as a "melting pot for mixing nationalities'.

My cousin said, that in Ukraine he was a Jew, and in Israel he became a Russian.
Anyway, when Latvia, Litva and Estonia were parts of Russia, Lithuania, Latvians and Estonians didn't see themselves as Russians either. And don't forget that Albanians in Kosovo didn't see themselves as Serbs.

We don't have split loyalties here, except maybe for Jews who have "dual citizenship".
We "assimilate" new comers just like the Borg.

Yep. There is a "crisis of affordability ", they say.

The US military can afford anything, the "affordability crisis" is for families trying to buy groceries.

You see, virtual ones and zeroes in bank computers has very little to do with actual capabilities to make proper weapons. What is even more important, American system is not supposed to be effective. Everyone wants to steal few bucks from every deal.

We have an expression: "money talks, bullshit walks". Meaning there is no substitute for money.
Don't be stupid enough to commit nuclear suicide.

 

[Zavulon]

Oil companies will figure out how to make a profit, no worries. They have very smart engineers.

Not smart enough to make profits from difficult oil fields with low oil prices.

MAD affects NATO countries because of Article 5, if Russia nukes a NATO country they should all nuke Russia.

So, if America nuke Britain (or DPRK) there will be no MAD, right? So, deterrence is not just philosophical consequence of existence of a nuclear bomb, right? It depends on many things, and with significant disproportion of nuclear forces both "expensive" and "flawless" victories are possible.
America won't nuke Britain (or DPRK) for no reason. But if they are too provocative (like selling Canada to China or invading South Korea) nuking them could become lesser evil.

We call that a clown show. Hit the button whenever you want millions of Russians dead.

Without hitting the button, highly likely, all Russians will be dead.

Focusing on Ukraine is so stupid. With the nuclear arsenals we have pointed at each other, to whine about a few more missiles here or there is ridiculous.

It is not. With all nuclear arsenals in 1962, deployment of Russian IRBMs on Cuba was unacceptable for the USA (or deployment of American IRBMs in Turkey and Europe), exactly because it was giving more or less "credible first strike capability".

Instead of Ukraine, how about Sweden? Or, Sweden, Finland, and Norway? Or how about in all of the NATO countries that border Russia?

Yep. They are waiting in the line for demilitarisation, too. Just first things first.

Not true. Name them.

Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Venezuela and many others.

Very bad idea.

Not the worst.

They have sovereignty no matter what Russia says. Its their country, that's what sovereignty means.

No. Nobody has right to attack Russians.

If they agitate they could get deported or end up in prison.

And if Baltic Nazies believe that they have right to discriminate, abuse or genocide Russians they could get bombed.

Big talk. NATO is an alliance of countries, their borders are where they are. Russia can't make demands to NATO.

Of course we can, and we do.

Like a ******* 6-year old playing with a loaded gun. So casually discussing nuclear annihilation.

Like a ******* 6-year old crying about Bogeyman under your bed. Become adult, read some books. Nuclear weapons is not some Ktulhu summoner. It's just a regular weapon. Just a bit more powerful. If one use it - he can win or lose. If one doesn't use it in the face of the enemies - he'll definitely lose.

No peace and prosperity, just death.

Death for you may means peace and prosperity for us.

Here in the US we are all Americans, no matter where our ancestors came from.
Our motto is "E Pluribus Unum". (from many...One).

So is Russia. "United by love" as popular Russian singer Natalia Oreiro sing.

The US military can afford anything, the "affordability crisis" is for families trying to buy groceries.

Of course no. US military can't afford a lot of things - starting with mobile ground complexes and ending with good intelligence.

We have an expression: "money talks, bullshit walks". Meaning there is no substitute for money.

Anything can be used as money. And if you don't have good brains, no amount of money won't help you. For the proper usage of money you need smart brains (and if your decision-makers are stupid - they can't hire smart guys).

Don't be stupid enough to commit nuclear suicide.

Exactly. And exactly because of it we won't allow you even to make first steps to achieving "credible first strike capability" and have your significant forces in Eastern Europe (and definitely not in Ukraine, Baltic or Finland). We definitely prefer "nuclear murder" (well prepared first struke) to "nuclear suicide" (allowing you to attack us first).

 

[kyzr]

So, if America nuke Britain (or DPRK) there will be no MAD, right? So, deterrence is not just philosophical consequence of existence of a nuclear bomb, right? It depends on many things, and with significant disproportion of nuclear forces both "expensive" and "flawless" victories are possible.America won't nuke Britain (or DPRK) for no reason. But if they are too provocative (like selling Canada to China or invading South Korea) nuking them could become lesser evil.

America won't nuke anyone who doesn't nuke us first.

Without hitting the button, highly likely, all Russians will be dead.

Nonsense. No one wants to attack Russia. We prefer prosperity to war. As Trump said yesterday, wars are expensive and are a massive waste of money.

It is not. With all nuclear arsenals in 1962, deployment of Russian IRBMs on Cuba was unacceptable for the USA (or deployment of American IRBMs in Turkey and Europe), exactly because it was giving more or less "credible first strike capability".

Fair point. So we need a safe standoff distance to keep MAD without fear of a sneak attack, a "no nuke zone" safely away from borders. That's what we have now, except you are worried about non-existent nuclear missiles being put in Ukraine.

Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Venezuela and many others.

They were not "peaceful states" when NATO stepped in. Serbia had the "ethnic cleansing" slaughter, Iraq had Saddam, Libya had Qaddafi, VN was going communist, VZ had Maduro. We removed vicious criminal dictators.

No. Nobody has right to attack Russians.

If they are inside the border of Ukraine they are Ukrainians not Russians. Russians are inside the border of Russia.

And if Baltic Nazis believe that they have right to discriminate, abuse or genocide Russians they could get bombed.

Ok, so deport unhappy Russians from Baltic countries.

Of course we can, and we do.

You can make demands of NATO, but have no legal basis.
NATO is an alliance of independent countries not under Russia's control.

Like a ******* 6-year old crying about Bogeyman under your bed. Become adult, read some books. Nuclear weapons is not some Ktulhu summoner. It's just a regular weapon. Just a bit more powerful. If one use it - he can win or lose. If one doesn't use it in the face of the enemies - he'll definitely lose.

Exactly. Using nukes is a final act of desperation.

Death for you may means peace and prosperity for us.

Nope. Nuclear war means death and destruction for everyone.

So is Russia. "United by love" as popular Russian singer Natalia Oreiro sing.

Fine. Inside Russia's borders be as united as you want.

Of course no. US military can't afford a lot of things - starting with mobile ground complexes and ending with good intelligence.

We can afford everything we need to ensure MAD

Anything can be used as money. And if you don't have good brains, no amount of money won't help you. For the proper usage of money you need smart brains (and if your decision-makers are stupid - they can't hire smart guys).

We have smart guys. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Jensen Wang, all the guys in the "Magnificent 7" with $trillions in value. You have smart guys developing the Oreshnik, the S-500, the Poseidon, and other weapons systems. Please remember why the USSR collapsed, it wasn't their inferior weapons, it was their inferior economy.

Exactly. And exactly because of it we won't allow you even to make first steps to achieving "credible first strike capability" and have your significant forces in Eastern Europe (and definitely not in Ukraine, Baltic or Finland). We definitely prefer "nuclear murder" (well prepared first strike) to "nuclear suicide" (allowing you to attack us first).

Ukraine can be a "buffer" without offensive weapons.
You keep saying NATO wants to do a first strike on Russia, but that makes no sense because of MAD.
No sane person wants to start a nuclear war where no one wins and everyone dies, its just stupid logic.
We're capitalists, we like peace, prosperity, and making lots of money.

 

[Zavulon]

America won't nuke anyone who doesn't nuke us first.

It is not what is written in your documents, and it's not what fits your moral values nor your actual behaviour (it were you, who nuked Japan).
What would be your choice - to nuke Britain (or DPRK) first with 95% probability of "flawless victory" (few thousands of British soldiers/sailors killed, no civilian casualties among both Brits and Americans) or allow them to nuke your cities first (they won't play games with "counter-force strike" because they don't care about "their" civilians at all and they have no technical capabilties to do so) which will lead to death of millions of American civilians and, after American retaliation, death of tens of millions of personally innocent British civilians?

Nonsense. No one wants to attack Russia.

You want it and you actually did it.

We prefer prosperity to war.

The only problem is, that your way to prosperity means killing other people and taking what belongs to them. We also prefer prosperity to war, and that's exactly why we kill people preparing attack us (and steal our property).

As Trump said yesterday, wars are expensive and are a massive waste of money.

Yes, of course. But allowing anybody to kill your people and steal your assets, is, in the long run, much more expensive.

Fair point. So we need a safe standoff distance to keep MAD without fear of a sneak attack, a "no nuke zone" safely away from borders.

Yep. Actually, we need the whole system of threaties. Like, we shouldn't allow each other have surface ships (especially disguised as civilian cargo ships) with Sea Launch Ballistic Missiles, we should inform each other about missiles launches and airborne patrols of bombers with live nukes, we shouldn't have national-wide ABD system (to guarantee that even small amount of survived nukes would cause significant and unacceptable damage). We shouldn't attack third countries without permission or neutrality of UN SC and so on...

That's what we have now, except you are worried about non-existent nuclear missiles being put in Ukraine.

No. Right now the whole system of international safety was totally destroyed.

They were not "peaceful states" when NATO stepped in. Serbia had the "ethnic cleansing" slaughter, Iraq had Saddam, Libya had Qaddafi, VN was going communist, VZ had Maduro. We removed vicious criminal dictators.

First of all, what happened with your "sovereignity" and "non of your business" rhetoric? Serbs were killing "Serbs" in Kosovo, according your previous logic, weren't they? All citizens of Serbia were Serbs (and if some of them consider themselves Albanians, they should have go to Albania) right?
Second, according your previous rhetoric Putin is a "vicious criminal dictator", too. And it means that you might be preparing attack on Russia.

If they are inside the border of Ukraine they are Ukrainians not Russians. Russians are inside the border of Russia.

Russia has no borders, only horizons. And it's not how real people consider themselves.

Ok, so deport unhappy Russians from Baltic countries.

No. I prefer to deport unhappy Baltic nazies from the former Baltic countries (in near future - oblasts in Russian Federation).

You can make demands of NATO, but have no legal basis.

In the modern world (created by your ruling imbeciles) there is only one legal basis left - "Might is right". You know, "Taiga is the law, and a bear is a prosecutor".

NATO is an alliance of independent countries not under Russia's control.

Blah-blah-blah...

Exactly. Using nukes is a final act of desperation.

Of course no. Nukes are weapons of war. The final act of desperation would be something like Cobalt volcano and specially created bio-engineed viruses.

Nope. Nuclear war means death and destruction for everyone.

It depends, first of all, on how we fight it.

Fine. Inside Russia's borders be as united as you want.

As I said, Russia has no borders. Only horizons.

We can afford everything we need to ensure MAD

No, you still can't. Can you afford gigaton-class strategic torpedoes or ground-based ballistic missiles?

We have smart guys. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Jensen Wang, all the guys in the "Magnificent 7" with $trillions in value. You have smart guys developing the Oreshnik, the S-500, the Poseidon, and other weapons systems. Please remember why the USSR collapsed, it wasn't their inferior weapons, it was their inferior economy.

It was both about not good enough weapons and problems in economy. A group of back room decision-makers in 1982 decided that leaving Eastern Germany and Poland (and buying by it at least forty years of peace) was better option than fighting nuclear war against NATO in few years (some guys still believe that this decision was a mistake). I think it was right. Right now Russia has much better economy and army.

Right now your decision-makers are facing the same choice: 1) Have a nuclear war with Russia in few years; 2) Leave Ukraine, Poland, Germany (may be whole Europe), but win decades of peace and use them for refirming and improving your economy and the whole state (remove parasites, melt some fat in muscles, make your people proud of themselves, and whatever you think you need).
I think, they already had choose option 1, and now the only question is who will shoot first and who will laugh last.

Ukraine can be a "buffer" without offensive weapons.

Bla-bla-bla. You have been saying the same things about new NATO members, too. Nobody believes you.

You keep saying NATO wants to do a first strike on Russia, but that makes no sense because of MAD.

There is no MAD. Neither Russian, nor American decision makers believe in MAD. That's the point.

No sane person wants to start a nuclear war where no one wins and everyone dies, its just stupid logic.

By destruction of the whole system of international safety, by removing all safeties and hiring Ukrainian Nazies to kill Russians, American decision-makers might persuade only two possible goals - they might want to nuke Russia, or they might want to be nuked by Russia. I seriously doubt that they want to get nuked (while I can't rule out it), but if they want to nuke Russia and don't suffer unacceptable damage, they should have some sneaky sophisticated plan. And this plan should be pretty vulnerable to our first strike. That's why I prone to join position of "eliminators" (shoot first and suggest mutually acceptable peace then).

We're capitalists, we like peace, prosperity, and making lots of money.

And to make a lots of money you kill lots of people. And to be not eliminated by you, we should eliminate you first.

 

[kyzr]

It is not what is written in your documents, and it's not what fits your moral values nor your actual behaviour (it were you, who nuked Japan).
What would be your choice - to nuke Britain (or DPRK) first with 95% probability of "flawless victory" (few thousands of British soldiers/sailors killed, no civilian casualties among both Brits and Americans) or allow them to nuke your cities first (they won't play games with "counter-force strike" because they don't care about "their" civilians at all and they have no technical capabilities to do so) which will lead to death of millions of American civilians and, after American retaliation, death of tens of millions of personally innocent British civilians?

We nuked Japan to end the war quicker with fewer casualties, a full scale invasion of Japan would have had at least a million dead.
There are no "flawless victories" regarding nuclear war. Please recall Putin's 3-day war disaster to capture Kyiv. There are always unknown unknowns that destroy "flawless war plans". As Helmuth Von Moltke said "No plan survives contact with the enemy"

You want it and you actually did attack Russia.

Nonsense. Without US support during WW2 Russians would be speaking German.

The only problem is, that your way to prosperity means killing other people and taking what belongs to them. We also prefer prosperity to war, and that's exactly why we kill people preparing attack us (and steal our property).

No one is preparing to attack Russia, that is a very big lie. We prepare a massive retaliation (MAD) to prevent Russia from attacking us.

Yes, of course wars are a waste of money. But allowing anybody to kill your people and steal your assets, is, in the long run, much more expensive.

No one is stealing Russian assets. That is a lie.

Yep. Actually, we need the whole system of treaties. Like, we shouldn't allow each other have surface ships (especially disguised as civilian cargo ships) with Sea Launch Ballistic Missiles, we should inform each other about missile launches and airborne patrols of bombers with live nukes, we shouldn't have nation-wide ABD system (to guarantee that even small amount of survived nukes would cause significant and unacceptable damage). We shouldn't attack third countries without permission or neutrality of UN SC and so on...

Treaties mean both side compromise. No one trusts Russia after guaranteeing Ukraine's security and then invading Ukraine.

No. Right now the whole system of international safety was totally destroyed.

Because Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening nuclear war. No one trusts Russia.

First of all, what happened with your "sovereignty" and "non of your business" rhetoric? Serbs were killing "Serbs" in Kosovo, according your previous logic, weren't they? All citizens of Serbia were Serbs (and if some of them consider themselves Albanians, they should have go to Albania) right?

Kosovo was not a sovereign country. It was part of Yugoslavia. Ukraine is a sovereign country.

https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/100/2/631/7617210?login=false

Second, according your previous rhetoric Putin is a "vicious criminal dictator", too. And it means that you might be preparing attack on Russia.

No one is going top attack Russia and risk a nuclear war. The same way Russia would be stupid attacking NATO.

Russia has no borders, only horizons. And it's not how real people consider themselves.

Russia has borders, and needs to stay inside them, or risk a major war.

No. I prefer to deport unhappy Baltic Nazis from the former Baltic countries (in near future - oblasts in Russian Federation).

NATO countries have borders too, and Russians need to stay out of them.

In the modern world (created by your ruling imbeciles) there is only one legal basis left - "Might makes right".

True. That has always been the case, we did not create it.

Of course no. Nukes are weapons of war. The final act of desperation would be something like Cobalt volcano and specially created bio-engineered viruses. Nuclear war depends, first of all, on how we fight it.

True. Once the missiles start flying things happen automatically. That's why its called MAD.

No, you still can't. Can you afford gigaton-class strategic torpedoes or ground-based ballistic missiles?

We can afford them, but Russia's assets are not coastal.

The fall of the USSR was both about not good enough weapons and problems in economy. A group of back room decision-makers in 1982 decided that leaving Eastern Germany and Poland (and buying by it at least forty years of peace) was better option than fighting nuclear war against NATO in few years (some guys still believe that this decision was a mistake). I think it was right. Right now Russia has much better economy and army.

Maintaining the "Iron Curtain" was very expensive. Your economy and army would be even better without the war in Ukraine.

Right now your decision-makers are facing the same choice: 1) Have a nuclear war with Russia in few years; 2) Leave Ukraine, Poland, Germany (may be whole Europe), but win decades of peace and use them for reforming and improving your economy and the whole state (remove parasites, melt some fat in muscles, make your people proud of themselves, and whatever you think you need).
I think, they already had choose option 1, and now the only question is who will shoot first and who will laugh last.

NATO is not abandoning anyone, not Poland, not Germany, and not Ukraine. We know who will shoot first, it will be Russia.

There is no MAD. Neither Russian, nor American decision makers believe in MAD. That's the point.

There are many nuclear "war game" options available to decision makers, but in the end nuclear war is devastating to all countries.

By destruction of the whole system of international safety, by removing all safeties and hiring Ukrainian Nazis to kill Russians, American decision-makers might persuade only two possible goals - they might want to nuke Russia, or they might want to be nuked by Russia. I seriously doubt that they want to get nuked (while I can't rule out it), but if they want to nuke Russia and don't suffer unacceptable damage, they should have some sneaky sophisticated plan. And this plan should be pretty vulnerable to our first strike. That's why I'm prone to join position of "eliminators" (shoot first and suggest mutually acceptable peace then).

Ukrainians only kill Russians who invaded Ukraine. If Russia ends the war no one else needs to die.
No one wants to nuke Russia and start a nuclear war no one wins.

And to make a lots of money you kill lots of people. And to be not eliminated by you, we should eliminate you first.

We don't kill people to make money. You apparently don't understand economics.

 

[Zavulon]

We nuked Japan to end the war quicker with fewer casualties, a full scale invasion of Japan would have had at least a million dead.

Exactly. Same way, Russia will nuke Europe and America. Invasion in Europe alone, (even without America) without nukes would lead to unnecessary deaths of millions of Russians. And not defending ourselves would mean genocide of all Russians.

There are no "flawless victories" regarding nuclear war.

Of course there are. You dropped two nukes on Japan - Japan surrender. The goals of the war achived, millions are saved.
The hypothetical US-UK war might be even easier to win (if you carefully planned your actions). One nuke on HMNB Clyde, one nuke on nuke storage. Two or three attacking submarines against one survived Vanguard submarine (one might be enough). Two or three Aegis cruiser to shoot down British (US-made) Trident missiles (one might be enough) if attacking submarines are absolutely unlucky. ABD system to intercept incoming warheads if both attacking subs and ABD cruisers are terribly unlucky. And so, you can be 95-99% sure that no American civilian is getting killed.

Please recall Putin's 3-day war disaster to capture Kyiv.

First of all, there were no such plan. To take 3 mln large city with 0,1 mln group... It's not realistic. Russia started this operation because of NATO involvement. It would be stupid and overoptimistic to believe that NATO will just ignore our actions. So, right now we are acting according "realistic" (more close to optimistic) scenario.

There are always unknown unknowns that destroy "flawless war plans". As Helmuth Von Moltke said "No plan survives contact with the enemy"

Yep. But it doesn't mean that you don't need planning your actions at all. You just need Plans B, X, D, ... Z and ability to improvise.
And there are known knowns. If you are positive that the UK are preparing to nuke the USA attacking them first is much more safer option than allowing UK attack US at the moment they choose.

Nonsense. Without US support during WW2 Russians would be speaking German.

Most of educated Russians were speaking German even before German invasion. One of the reasons why we won. And no, US support was important (thank you very much), but definitely not decisive. I mean you already gave to Ukraine more than you gave to USSR without any visible result.

No one is preparing to attack Russia, that is a very big lie.

You already attacked Russia

We prepare a massive retaliation (MAD) to prevent Russia from attacking us.

No, you don't. Removing all safeties has only two possible goals - you want to nuke Russia, or you want to get nuked by Russia.

No one is stealing Russian assets. That is a lie.

What about Russian tanker "Bella 1" captured by US pirates in January?

Treaties mean both side compromise.

Not necessarily. They might mean unconditional surrender of one side, too.

No one trusts Russia after guaranteeing Ukraine's security and then invading Ukraine.

C'mon, we can guarantee one thing - if Kievan regime (as well as Baltic Nazies) continue discrimination and genocide of Russians (say nothing about NATO forces) there will be other rebellions and invasions.

Because Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening nuclear war. No one trusts Russia.

You should trust only one thing - if you continue your current actions, you are all (almost all) dead in few years.

Kosovo was not a sovereign country. It was part of Yugoslavia.

Kosovo, in 1999, was a part of Serbia (and most of countries believe it still is a part of Serbia), and it was (and most believe still is) exclusively Serb's business what do they do with separatists in Kosovo. They had right to kill them all, if they wish. That's what the word "sovereignity" means, isn't it?

No one is going top attack Russia and risk a nuclear war.

You are already attacking Russia and risking nuclear war. Actually, I believe that nuclear war is practically unavoidable.

The same way Russia would be stupid attacking NATO.

No. One can't win a war by defence only. The only practical way to eliminate NATO is, I think, attack them.

Russia has borders, and needs to stay inside them, or risk a major war.

Right after you are returning into your borders.

NATO countries have borders too, and Russians need to stay out of them.

Of course no.

True. That has always been the case, we did not create it.

Sometimes there are system when Great Powers act according the rules they established for themselves (and minor powers). That's what we call "post-war world order". And there are situations when they violate those rules and act as they wish. That's what we call "pre-war world order".

Post-WWII order was finished in 1999 and 2003 and pre-WWIII order had started. Now, it's going to it's end and to WWIII.

True. Once the missiles start flying things happen automatically.

Of course no. There are always "human in loop" safeties. You always has the choice - retaliate and die, or not retaliate, and survive.

That's why its called MAD.

And Bogeyman lives under your bed.

Maintaining the "Iron Curtain" was very expensive. Your economy and army would be even better without the war in Ukraine.

It's not a war yet. Just a Special Operation. Without starting defending ourselves we might be already dead by now.

NATO is not abandoning anyone, not Poland, not Germany, and not Ukraine.

If you really wish it, it will be a war until total annihilation of one of the side. If you are not suicidal, you are preparing your attack on us. And it means that we have to attack you first.

We know who will shoot first, it will be Russia.

And we know who will play "Texas Red". It will be America.

There are many nuclear "war game" options available to decision makers, but in the end nuclear war is devastating to all countries.

Only if you decide to retaliate. But if (very big IF) you act soberly there is 25% probability that you'll accept Russian peace terms.

Ukrainians only kill Russians who invaded Ukraine.

Plain lie.

If Russia ends the war no one else needs to die.

Plain lie. As if there is an elixir of ethernal life of something. We are mortal creatures.

No one wants to nuke Russia and start a nuclear war no one wins.

But you are provocative enough to force Russia to nuke you.

We don't kill people to make money.

It is exactly what you do.

 

[kyzr]

Exactly. Same way, Russia will nuke Europe and America. Invasion in Europe alone, (even without America) without nukes would lead to unnecessary deaths of millions of Russians. And not defending ourselves would mean genocide of all Russians.

Russia is not at war with Europe like we were with Japan.
Japan started WW2 with a "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, so one theory was that using nukes was the US military's way of punishing Japan for that sneak attack. Punishment for a nuclear attack would be much more severe.

Of course there are "flawless victories". You dropped two nukes on Japan - Japan surrender. The goals of the war achieved, millions are saved.The hypothetical US-UK war might be even easier to win (if you carefully planned your actions). One nuke on HMNB Clyde, one nuke on nuke storage. Two or three attacking submarines against one survived Vanguard submarine (one might be enough). Two or three Aegis cruiser to shoot down British (US-made) Trident missiles (one might be enough) if attacking submarines are absolutely unlucky. ABD system to intercept incoming warheads if both attacking subs and ABD cruisers are terribly unlucky. And so, you can be 95-99% sure that no American civilian is getting killed.

NATO countries would never fight each other. There are no "flawless nuclear wars". MAD says otherwise.

First of all, there were no such plan. To take 3 mln large city with 0,1 mln group... It's not realistic. Russia started this operation because of NATO involvement. It would be stupid and overoptimistic to believe that NATO will just ignore our actions. So, right now we are acting according "realistic" (more close to optimistic) scenario.

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/putin-thought-he-could-take-ukraine-in-three-days-leaked-emails-reveal/news-story/bf4de32af600b8b653069cdc34c174c8

Most of educated Russians were speaking German even before German invasion. One of the reasons why we won. And no, US support was important (thank you very much), but definitely not decisive. I mean you already gave to Ukraine more than you gave to USSR without any visible result.

The visible result is that Ukraine is still independent of Russia. The Russian invasion is a stalemate/zugzwang.

No, you don't. Removing all safeties has only two possible goals - you want to nuke Russia, or you want to get nuked by Russia.

...or one side can't be trusted to honor treaties

What about Russian tanker "Bella 1" captured by US pirates in January?

That was just enforcing sanctions. Not an act of war. It wasn't sunk.

Treaties might mean unconditional surrender of one side, too.

There is a difference between treaties and articles of unconditional surrender.

C'mon, we can guarantee one thing - if Kiev regime (as well as Baltic Nazis) continue discrimination and genocide of Russians (say nothing about NATO forces) there will be other rebellions and invasions.

Looks like "ethnic cleansing" by deportation needs to happen to keep Russians in Russia.

You should trust only one thing - if you continue your current actions, you are all (almost all) dead in few years.

We both have nuclear buttons.

Kosovo, in 1999, was a part of Serbia (and most of countries believe it still is a part of Serbia), and it was (and most believe still is) exclusively Serb's business what do they do with separatists in Kosovo. They had right to kill them all, if they wish. That's what the word "sovereignty" means, isn't it?

I'm not a fan of slaughtering women and kids. I prefer a "showdown", eyeball to eyeball, like in the wild west.

One can't win a war by defence only. The only practical way to eliminate NATO is, I think, attack them.

Actually if Russia's economy falters from war overspending Ukraine can win a peace deal with defense only.

Right after you are returning you into your borders.

We all need to stay inside our borders.

Sometimes there are system when Great Powers act according the rules they established for themselves (and minor powers). That's what we call "post-war world order". And there are situations when they violate those rules and act as they wish. That's what we call "pre-war world order". Post-WWII order was finished in 1999 and 2003 and pre-WWIII order had started. Now, it's going to it's end and to WWIII.

We better hope that "finer minds" than ours figure out a better solution than WW3.

Of course no. There are always "human in loop" safeties. You always has the choice - retaliate and die, or not retaliate, and survive.

If "The House of Dynamite" was close to accurate, once the president authorizes a nuclear response he heads for the bomb shelter and the missiles fly automatically.

It's not a war yet. Just a Special Operation. Without starting defending ourselves we might be already dead by now.

You aren't defending yourselves, you invaded tiny Ukraine, which was not a threat to mighty Russia.

If you really wish it, it will be a war until total annihilation of one of the sides. If you are not suicidal, you are preparing your attack on us. And it means that we have to attack you first.

The fact that NATO defends member states is not suicidal. Attacking a NATO country is suicidal.

Only if you decide to retaliate. But if (very big IF) you act soberly there is 25% probability that you'll accept Russian peace terms.

There is a 0% probability that NATO would accept Russian peace terms, since there would be no Russia.

But you are provocative enough to force Russia to nuke you.

What US provocation? Russia is invading Ukraine.
If Russia agrees to a peace deal we can get back to making money instead of bombs.

It is exactly what you do, kill people to make money.

Not true. We make lots of high tech gadgets to make money.
We invented computers, advanced chips, iPhones, TV, and nuclear weapons.

 

[Mushroom]

Never heard of stand-off weapons?

Ever hear of stealth bombers? B-52s would mop up after they have taken out the air defenses.

And one tactic that they would likely do is a modern variant of a strategy Tom Clancy called "Dance of the Vampires" back in 1986.

That is from his classic book "Red Storm Rising". In short, a bunch of outdates Soviet bombers approach a US carrier group, and launch a bunch of outdated cruise missiles at the fleet. With the purpose being that all the bombers and cruise missiles make it appear to be a much larger attacking force that is closing in.

Only once most of the fighters are off after that force, a second one comes in for the real attack.

And the same strategy can be used with the BUFF, with some other aircraft coming in once the target is distracted. And the B-52H can carry up to 20 cruise missiles. The USAF still has 58 in active service, with an additional 18 in reserve and 12 in mothballs. Even 10 of them used in that way would be a serious threat that no nation could ignore.

Fly in close (1,500 miles), launch their stand-off weapons and leave. That is the reason they have weapons like that in the first place after all. The target would have to respond, and even if 200 ALCMs were all intercepted, that would put a serious dent into the air defense capabilities of any nation. Making it easier for say B-2 and F-35 to come in and stage an attack at about the time those missiles would hit.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia is not at war with Europe like we were with Japan.

Not yet. But further escalation seems inevitable.

Japan started WW2 with a "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, so one theory was that using nukes was the US military's way of punishing Japan for that sneak attack. Punishment for a nuclear attack would be much more severe.

No. You won't punish anybody if you are dead.

NATO countries would never fight each other. There are no "flawless nuclear wars". MAD says otherwise.

You have lesser, but still very good chances in a war against minor nuclear powers - North Korea, Pakistan, Israel etc...
MAD is just a myth. Neither Russian, nor American decision-makers believe it.

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/putin-thought-he-could-take-ukraine-in-three-days-leaked-emails-reveal/news-story/bf4de32af600b8b653069cdc34c174c8

Plain lie.

The visible result is that Ukraine is still independent of Russia. The Russian invasion is a stalemate/zugzwang.

It's not stalemate. It's still working meatgrinder. In few more years all Ukrainian adult males will be killed.

...or one side can't be trusted to honor treaties

No. Treaties (and inspections according it) are vital especially if sides don't trust each other.

That was just enforcing sanctions. Not an act of war. It wasn't sunk.

It was stolen Russian property. And this is exactly how Americans making themsleves rich.

There is a difference between treaties and articles of unconditional surrender.

Yep. If you don't want Russia-acceptable treaty (and you don't want it) - there will be unconditional surrender of you or your total annihilation.

Looks like "ethnic cleansing" by deportation needs to happen to keep Russians in Russia.

Just another prove that you are nazies and should be eliminated.

We both have nuclear buttons.

It doesn't matter how many nukes you have during peace time. What is important is how many nukes will survive Russian attack.

I'm not a fan of slaughtering women and kids. I prefer a "showdown", eyeball to eyeball, like in the wild west.

It's not about what you are fan of. It's about sovereignity. Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Syria were sovereign countries who didn't attack neither USA nor US-allies.

We all need to stay inside our borders.

You first.

We better hope that "finer minds" than ours figure out a better solution than WW3.

I doubt it.

If "The House of Dynamite" was close to accurate, once the president authorizes a nuclear response he heads for the bomb shelter and the missiles fly automatically.

If Russia suggested "Humanitarian pause" for 48 hours, which might save millions of American lives, there are good chances that Americans will agree.

You aren't defending yourselves, you invaded tiny Ukraine, which was not a threat to mighty Russia.

Ukraine is not tiny. It was largest European state before 2022, and even now it's slighy lesser than France.

There is a 0% probability that NATO would accept Russian peace terms, since there would be no Russia.

And what will happen with Russia in this scenario? Ctulhu attack or what?

What US provocation?

NATO expansion.

Russia is invading Ukraine.
If Russia agrees to a peace deal we can get back to making money instead of bombs.

You mean stealing money?

Not true. We make lots of high tech gadgets to make money.
We invented computers, advanced chips, iPhones, TV, and nuclear weapons.

You live on stolen land, with infrastructure built by slaves, and exploit the whole world by unfair deals and robbery raids.

 

[kyzr]

No. You won't punish anybody if you are dead.

After the first 100 nuclear explosions life on Earth becomes very difficult.
Agriculture ends, nuclear winter happens, that is not a win.

You have very good chances in a war against minor nuclear powers - North Korea, Pakistan, Israel etc...
MAD is just a myth. Neither Russian, nor American decision-makers believe it.

Believe it. Just thinking, doesn't Putin have 5 kids? Maria (married Dutch guy), Katerina, Ivan, Vladimir Jr, and Elizaveta's daughter? What kind of world do you think he wants to leave them and their kids?

It's not stalemate. It's still working meat-grinder. In few more years all Ukrainian adult males will be killed.

Yes its a meat grinder, but both sides are getting ground down.

Treaties (and inspections according it) are vital especially if sides don't trust each other.

OK, what do you think China will say when we want to inspect their new underground military stuff?

The Bella-1 was stolen Russian property. And this is exactly how Americans making themselves rich.

Trump enforces oil sanctions. I don't think we stole the tanker, just the oil.

Yep. If you don't want Russia-acceptable treaty (and you don't want it) - there will be unconditional surrender of you or your total annihilation.

Big talk. Bluster. You push your buttons we push ours.

Just another proof that you are Nazis and should be eliminated.

Deporting Russian agitators just proves we don't put up with Russia's nonsense.

It doesn't matter how many nukes you have during peace time. What is important is how many nukes will survive Russian attack.

True.

It's not about what you are fan of. It's about sovereignty. Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Syria were sovereign countries who didn't attack neither USA nor US-allies.

Yeah, but they were very bad guys, so we play "world's" cop occasionally for humanitarian reasons and eliminate evil dictators.

You need to stay in your borders first.

We do, unless we are invited in, or need to get rid of criminals.

If Russia suggested "Humanitarian pause" for 48 hours, which might save millions of American lives, there are good chances that Americans will agree.

Too late. Once the missiles start flying and the silos are empty, its too late.

Ukraine is not tiny. It was largest European state before 2022, and even now it's slightly smaller than France.

True, but its 1/9th the size of Russia.
Saying mighty Russia with all their fancy weapons is worried about Ukraine with no fancy weapons doing genocide is nonsense.

And what will happen with Russia in this scenario? "Ctulhu" attack or what?

Not sure what that word was, but after a nuclear war, Russia as you knew it wouldn't exist.
It would probably all belong to China.

NATO expansion.

That is not a US provocation, but a NATO provocation. Countries are free to form alliances, especially when Russia is acting bellicose

You mean stealing money?

After a peace deal we can both make money and prosper.

You live on stolen land, with infrastructure built by slaves, and exploit the whole world by unfair deals and robbery raids.

The US land was available for use, we didn't steal it any more than any country claims land and establishes borders.
Slaves were a very tiny minority in the south working on farms, they did not build infrastructure.
The US does trade deals and removes criminal dictators, we don't rob people.

 

[Zavulon]

After the first 100 nuclear explosions life on Earth becomes very difficult.

There were more than two thousands nuclear explosions on Earth. And almost one thousand of them took place near Las Vegas. Is life in Las Vegas "very difficult" now?

Agriculture ends, nuclear winter happens, that is not a win.

It's just environmentalistic nonsense. If you are a Byzantium Catholic, you shouldn't believe in those things.

Believe it.

Why? With all due respect to all religions, converting in one of them without any convincing reason is not what I'm going to do.
If you want to convince me (more or less scientifically), you need to prove those (obviously false) statements:
1) Nuclear war is about nuking cities, not about nuking nukes. (In fact, all reasonable people prefer to defend their own population to killing other people);
2) If a modern city is nuked by a modern bomb - there will be massive fires, not "smoldering in the rubble". (In fact the range of destruction is wider than the range of inflammation);
3) In a modern city all those fires can unite in a firestorm. (In fact, modern cities has wide streets and fire can't spread that easily);
4) This hypothetical firestorm will generate great amount of soot and ash and transport them in higher layers of atmosphere (In fact, higher temperature in the super-duper firestorm will just burn all soot and ash to CO_2 and H_2O);
5) All those particles will be circulating in upper atmosphere for many years (In fact, particles after volcanic eruption fall quite soon);
6) There will be no neither great amount of C_2O nor H_2O (water vapour) which are greenhouse gases, , there will be no "global warming" (nuclear summer) effects. (Burning massive amounts of organic and evaporation of sea water cause exactly this effect);
7) Few years without summer will cause fall of the state and civilisation. (In fact, three years without summer in the beginning of XVII century in Russia, compounded with massive European invasion, indeed caused some social disturbances, and death of roughly 30% of its population, but in few decades problems were solved, Europeans were beaten, and The Great Duchy od Moscow became Russian Empire).

Nuclear winter (or any other hypothetical climatic or ecological shift) it's just "challenge", not "apocalypse". If you are smart, strong and lucky, you'll survive it and even became smarter and stronger.

Just thinking, doesn't Putin have 5 kids? Maria (married Dutch guy), Katerina, Ivan, Vladimir Jr, and Elizaveta's daughter? What kind of world do you think he wants to leave them and their kids?

I don't give a shit about Putin and his kids. He is nothing but a face of the brand (like Colonel Sanders is the face of KFC). Not very good face, if you ask my personal opinion.

Yes its a meat grinder, but both sides are getting ground down.

With 36:1 exchange rate we can easily continue to eliminate both Ukrainians and their mercenaries.

OK, what do you think China will say when we want to inspect their new underground military stuff?

They will say two things:
1) Right now Chines nuclear forces are far from being capable to reliably elimate American nuclear forces by the first counter-force strike, so, there is no need in such inspections (in the logic of New Start treaty).
2) You can't get something for nothing. If you want a treaty with China, you should suggest something in return. And you have nothing to suggest in the matter of nuclear deterrence, because further decreasing of US nuclear arsenal will just increase the disbalance between Russia's increasing nuclear capabilities and America's decreasing.

If you want to push simultaneously Russia and China into submission, you need all the three leverages:
1) R&D Gap - you need to invent or develop some weapons Russia and China don't posses;
2) Production Gap - you need to produce those weapons in the proper amounts;
3) Operational Gap - you need to be able to use those weapons in a not suicidal way.

And, as far as I know, you are not even close.

Trump enforces oil sanctions. I don't think we stole the tanker, just the oil.

It's still stealing our property. And I believe you'll continue to do it until we coerce you into following Russia-acceptable rules or eliminate you.

Big talk. Bluster. You push your buttons we push ours.

No problem. No much use in pushing your buttons if your forces are already destroyed.

Deporting Russian agitators just proves we don't put up with Russia's nonsense.

C'mon. If American regime, some illegimate dictator, declare "America for [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant] Americans!" and start terror campaign against American Catholics (including Byzantium Catholics) will you meekly go in a gas chamber, will you run away, or will you fight back, defending your Faith, your family and your property? Will you need any "Catholic agitators" to recognise the threat?

True.

Yeah, but they were very bad guys, so we play "world's" cop occasionally for humanitarian reasons and eliminate evil dictators.

A cop who wasn't properly elected and who doesn't obey the law, isn't a cop. He is just a lucky gangster. Or unlucky when the good guys come after him.
And anyway, if Putin was declared as "evil dictator" by your mass media, we should see it as American preparation to attack Russia. And it is another confirmation that Russia should attack America first.

True, but its 1/9th the size of Russia.
Saying mighty Russia with all their fancy weapons is worried about Ukraine with no fancy weapons doing genocide is nonsense.

Actually, it depends mostly on how we count it. The total square of Russia is 17.800.555 sq km, from which square of Russian Federation is 17.125.191 sq km (96,2%), square of Ukraine 467.764 sq km (2,6%), and Belarus 207.600 sq km (1,2%).

But Cuba is, as far as I know, 8,5 times lesser than the USA, but with Russian nuclear missiles in it, it is a vital threat to America.

Not sure what that word was, but after a nuclear war, Russia as you knew it wouldn't exist.

It will be new and beautiful Russia of future. Much larger, much stronger, much smarter and much more comfortable to live. Everyone who before the war had a bicycle will have a car, who had a car will have a yacht and a plane, and who had a plane will have a space ship and an apple garden on Mars.

It would probably all belong to China.

Or China will belong to Russia, which is also possible, in in which I see the more significant threat to Russia.

That is not a US provocation, but a NATO provocation. Countries are free to form alliances, especially when Russia is acting bellicose

Yep. It was your choice to spread NATO in Easten Europe and now you are going to pay for this decision.

After a peace deal we can both make money and prosper.

Only if this deal is mutually acceptable. And, as you said, you are not going to make a mutually acceptable peace deal. So, there will be a war.

The US land was available for use, we didn't steal it any more than any country claims land and establishes borders.
Slaves were a very tiny minority in the south working on farms, they did not build infrastructure.
The US does trade deals and removes criminal dictators, we don't rob people.

Bla-bla-bla. That is exactly what you are doing. And even significant part of your politicians recognise it.