He is correct about Russia's armed forces having degenerated into an underequipped, half-trained joke, though. This whole conflict has exposed them as being a house of cards with a veneer of steel.
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
That's a pretty bold assertion. What do you have to back it up?
this is exactly why america and Europe are throwing everything including kitchen sinks at Ukraine.
The first couple weeks we were humored then we realized that the russian plan for security means they are required to go after Nato Allies in order to complete the mission. The russians consider this a survival issue so if Ukraine falls Nukes are on the table. So the current goal is to fight to the very last Ukranian and kill the Russian milatary in Ukraine.
That means at least half a million russians have to die, because russians don't stop fighting until they cant fight anymore.
What evidence do you have that Putin, with his nukes, would back down to an escalation?
He didn't nuke anyone when Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO.
He wasn't at war with Finland and Sweden.
A country also can't join NATO if there are land disputes
Go tell that to the person I was responding to, who said "It would stop Russia if they joined NATO."
I'll wait a minute for you to realize who said that and started this line of discussion.
I thought you were meaning before the war.
Now, it would STILL end the war because then NATO would get invovled and they would have no forces left by the end of the month and Poland would be bragging
bintananth
behind a desk
If nukes fly no one wins and everyone loses. The Poles wouldn't be bragging. They'd be searching through a radioactive wasteland for survivors ... just like everyone else who got dragged into a nuclear exchange.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Everyone in the cities lose, The west would probably benefit from fewer urbanites in the long term.
bintananth
behind a desk
No, everyone loses. If Indianapolis gets nuked the US loses four interstates, several airports, and, IIRC pretty much all of the high capacity railroad lines between Lake Michigan and the Ohio River.
After that getting something from New England to somewhere West of the Mississippi (or vice-versa) means taking "the long way round".
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I'm aware, what I said was in jest and not to be taken seriously.
mrttao
Well-known member
The problem is the range on radiation. Even though I don't live in a big city, I am close enough that if the nearest big city to me is nuked, I will probably get 1st degree burns and die of cancer in 20-30 years (according to nuke calculator apps I used).
But... there are actually more than 1 big cities surrounding me that would have that result, if all of them are nuked I would get repeat dosages.
One has to seek a pretty remote location.
... alternatively, I could get a house in a basement and live there. in that case I would be absolutely perfectly fine if the cities get nuked while I am in the basement.
or I could theoretically find a sufficiently remote farmhouse where I would be perfectly safe.
also if enough nukes hit nuclear winter will fuck us over too. Can't exactly grow food in nuclear winter.
As lovely as it would be to excise the cancerous tumors that the cities become, WW3 with nukes is not the way to do it.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
One thing everyone seems to forget about this is that currently Russia and the US only have around 1,500 nuclear weapons each that are ready to launch which is a far cry from the arsenals of the cold war. While thats enough to seriously fuck things up its nowhere near enough for the seriously apocalyptic scenarios that could have unfolded in the 70's and 80's.
bintananth
behind a desk
If only one nuke is designated for each of the 200 largest cities in a US-Russia nuclear exchange both McAllen, Texas and Kineshma, Siberia get hit. I hadn't heard of either until a few minunes ago.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
This question lacks so much context as to be almost meaningless.
'Back down to an escalation.'
What escalation?
Russia invaded another country. That's an escalation to 'hot war.'
What exactly do you think NATO is going to do that is going to get Putin to commit suicide for both himself and his nation?
I don't want vague generalities. I don't want 'serious provocation' indistinctness. I want you to say what specific line(s) you think NATO crossing would convince Putin suicide is preferable to fighting and living on.
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
The part where you suggested that NATO breaks its own rules (country can not join if at war) and signs up to have Ukraine join while it is at war with Russia. Making NATO instantly at war with russia too. Which is exactly why NATO has the rule about not being at war with anyone while joining
An escalation from "peace" to "small war between two nations"
You are proposing to then do further escalation from that by having every nation in nato join that war.
mrttao
Well-known member
To be fair. it is not just russia's.
Western nations have the same issue.
I can't wait to see the new "women first" USA army with "green" vehicles and a collapsed home industrial economy try to wage war against russia. It will be a pitiful slap fight.
What escalation?
Uhh..joining NATO in the middle of a war and starting ww3 by adding 30 countries into the war?
I was after all, responding to a post that said "It would stop Russia if they joined NATO."
Since you weren't aware, joining NATO during an active conflict, would in fact be an escalation, because the alliance then would have to actually act on that.
Welcome to WW3.
This would be the end for Putin, and seeing as he isn't doing great in Ukraine right now, but shows no signs of stopping, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't continue. I have no reason to believe he wouldn't drop nukes, if he saw that his end was inevitable anyways.