Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[ShadowArxxy]

And that is why Poland is not safe,too.Becouse,let be frank,Moscov would say that they feel danger from any state with which they have border.
Except those who really want part of their terrotory,like China.

Funny people,those kgb.

The territorial ambitions of the current Russian regime appear to be similar to those of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia -- they believe they are entitled to claim perpetual sovereignty over any and all territory that was claimed by all historical regimes that they consider themselves a successor to.

So they could conquer all of Ukraine, move on to Poland and Finland, and still never be satisfied, because they'd insist that they have always rightfully owned the former Russian Empire's holdings in North America and Asia as well.

 

[Aldarion]

Idk.
It seems most of Central and a lot of Eastern are more then happy to have the US support

Of course - Russia is a more immediate threat, and a more traditional threat.

 

[Zachowon]

Of course - Russia is a more immediate threat, and a more traditional threat.

And they arnt affected by woke policies even if the West has very strong ties.
Hell, the US Army just opened a base in Poland....a not so woke country.
So obviously we support allies that are more then just woke

 

[Aldarion]

And they arnt affected by woke policies even if the West has very strong ties.
Hell, the US Army just opened a base in Poland....a not so woke country.
So obviously we support allies that are more then just woke

Of course, but that doesn't mean that certain elements within the US will not try to use that support to push the Woke agenda through. That is my main fear regarding the US (and especially EU, which already is doing precisely that).

 

[Marduk]

Of course, but that doesn't mean that certain elements within the US will not try to use that support to push the Woke agenda through. That is my main fear regarding the US (and especially EU, which already is doing precisely that).

But can they and do they care much? Consider all the other alliances USA has in Asia and Middle East, good luck...
Ironically, whenever countries in Europe do something particularly woke, sometimes even beyond US wokeness at the time, it's often driven by people who aren't big fans of America at all (hell, even the wokest far left in USA itself are also the people who hate US foreign policy status quo the most).

Thousands protest in Madrid against NATO summit

Carrying the hammer and sickle flags of the former Soviet Union, thousands protested in Madrid on Sunday against a NATO summit which will take place in the Spanish capital next week.

www.reuters.com

 

[Zachowon]

Korea is one of America's biggest allies and they are far from woke.
Yet they love America.

 

[Cherico]

The territorial ambitions of the current Russian regime appear to be similar to those of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia -- they believe they are entitled to claim perpetual sovereignty over any and all territory that was claimed by all historical regimes that they consider themselves a successor to.

So they could conquer all of Ukraine, move on to Poland and Finland, and still never be satisfied, because they'd insist that they have always rightfully owned the former Russian Empire's holdings in North America and Asia as well.

The Russians have brought that up we informed them that we have already paid them the money for Alaska and that we have nuclear weapons too

 

[Agent23]

Nice parody you have there, but take it to the meme thread or something.

Mmm.Free salt. 😏

In theory...
But if that's where you want to draw the line, you have to apply it to everyone's high performance heavy SAMs, not just American ones.
In reality, it would be wasteful due to the sheer size and cost of supporting resources such systems have (big ass ultra expensive radars)...
While if one aims to do a nuclear sneak attacks with few dozens of missiles, there are sneakier and more effective ways that are much cheaper while at it. Stationary facility? And not in the middle of icy/sandy wasteland, but a well populated area? Really?

>But what about...

Yeah, no, decapitation strike capabilities would be worth it.As would the ability to stealthily install MRBM and SRBM capabilities on your enemy's doorstep.

 

[Megadeath]

Mmm.Free salt. 😏

>But what about...

Yeah, no, decapitation strike capabilities would be worth it.As would the ability to stealthily install MRBM and SRBM capabilities on your enemy's doorstep.

Weren't the Russian government boasting a couple months back about how they could easily hit London with a nuclear missile strike in like 12 minutes or something? And obviously almost every other European capital in even less. Certainly feels like a rather moot point as to exactly which missile system is where. Comparatively, I'm not sure I've heard of anyone threatening a strike on Moscow. Not even the Ukrainians who are fighting for their life against russia and certainly NATO hasn't.

 

[Buba]

Judging by the prominent presence of "pro pervert" livery I take it that "mas Euros por la vida" is NOT an expression of "pro life" sentiments?
Just shoot the fuckers ... IQ will go up, up and AWAY!

 

[mrttao]

Judging by the prominent presence of "pro pervert" livery I take it that "mas Euros por la vida" is NOT an expression of "pro life" sentiments?
Just shoot the fuckers ... IQ will go up, up and AWAY!

Google translate says it means
"more Euros for life"

according to the article. what pro life means in this context is:

"I am fed up (with) this business of arms and killing people. The solution they propose is more arms and wars and we always pay for it. So, no NATO, no (army) bases, let the Americans go and leave us alone without wars and weapons," said Concha Hoyos, a retired Madrid resident, told Reuters.

"Tanks yes, but of beer with tapas," sang demonstrators, who claimed an increase in defence spending in Europe urged by NATO was a threat to peace.

 

[Marduk]

Mmm.Free salt. 😏

Sorry, you are a bit late for free road salt.

>But what about...

Yeah, no, decapitation strike capabilities would be worth it.As would the ability to stealthily install MRBM and SRBM capabilities on your enemy's doorstep.

In a stationary facility. That the news talk about. With 10, 20 or 40 missiles, as if that was enough to be sure. While spending billions on a huge facility with staff and tracking radars for a pretend ABM facility that has no interceptors. Such stealth. Such power. Peak of nuclear weaponry... by the standards of the 1950's.
You think evil NATO westerners are too stupid to stick a missile in a completely innocently looking 40ft container if they *really* wanted that capability? This way any truck convoy or a RoRo freighter can do the same job better and cheaper.
Alternatively, stick the same missiles in the launch tubes of few destroyers (up to 90 per, but some would be left for defensive capabilities) and then send them to Baltic exercises or other courtesy visits.
And if we're in fantasy land already, why not just simply move their already existing and properly equipped SSBNs to a convenient, nearby location in Baltic or Med, because apparently America can make Russian second strike capability disappear so they sure can get these submarines where they need to be stealthily and safely too.
It's a completely laughable point invented by people who really needed an issue to have with the ABM that would make them look like the victim, so they couldn't talk about their real beef with it and had to invent a more "politically correct" controversy to bring up in its stead.

 

[AmosTrask]

Except those who really want part of their terrotory,like China.

If you look those garrison troops on the Chinese border are the only units that are at prewar levels. They avoided moving too many of them off the border. Those that were moved were replaced by two units of inexperienced troopers.

 

[Typhonis]

So Putin is smart enough not to trust China but what condition are the border units in? Hell back in the SU days they had problems with graft and corruption. How good are they now?

 

[AmosTrask]

So Putin is smart enough not to trust China but what condition are the border units in? Hell back in the SU days they had problems with graft and corruption. How good are they now?

Before the war they had first pick of supplies after GRU. Now? I have no idea.

 

[Agent23]

Sorry, you are a bit late for free road salt.

In a stationary facility. That the news talk about. With 10, 20 or 40 missiles, as if that was enough to be sure. While spending billions on a huge facility with staff and tracking radars for a pretend ABM facility that has no interceptors. Such stealth. Such power. Peak of nuclear weaponry... by the standards of the 1950's.
You think evil NATO westerners are too stupid to stick a missile in a completely innocently looking 40ft container if they *really* wanted that capability? This way any truck convoy or a RoRo freighter can do the same job better and cheaper.
Alternatively, stick the same missiles in the launch tubes of few destroyers (up to 90 per, but some would be left for defensive capabilities) and then send them to Baltic exercises or other courtesy visits.
And if we're in fantasy land already, why not just simply move their already existing and properly equipped SSBNs to a convenient, nearby location in Baltic or Med, because apparently America can make Russian second strike capability disappear so they sure can get these submarines where they need to be stealthily and safely too.
It's a completely laughable point invented by people who really needed an issue to have with the ABM that would make them look like the victim, so they couldn't talk about their real beef with it and had to invent a more "politically correct" controversy to bring up in its stead.

And how much lead screening around it?

I think you will need more than 1-2 missiles to do a decapitation strike, and usually this shit is under very heavy security since if someone steals and uses it then it is on your side that you lost it or claim you did.

Nuclear material can be traced to it's source and detected in transit.

Nuclear weapons contain SNM, which produces suspect signatures that can be detected. It emits
radiation, notably gamma rays (high-energy photons) and neutrons. SNM is dense, so it produces
a bright image on a radiograph (a picture like a medical x-ray) when x-rays or gamma rays are
beamed through a container in which it is hidden. Using lead or other shielding to attenuate
gamma rays would make that image larger. Nuclear weapons produce detectable signatures, such
as radiation or a noticeable image on a radiograph. Other detection techniques are also available.

 

[Marduk]

And how much lead screening around it?

I think you will need more than 1-2 missiles to do a decapitation strike, and usually this shit is under very heavy security since if someone steals and uses it then it is on your side that you lost it or claim you did.

Nuclear material can be traced to it's source and detected in transit.

Well then, how would they secretly transit the sneaky nuclear missiles to this big and well known facility and then secretly load them into launchers?
You can put a pretty damn thick lead sheet on a friggin freighter.
Or tens to hundreds of meters of water over a submarine.
1-2 missiles? Fuck it, a single B-2 can do it better, good luck tracking that.
And i could go on. If the sneak decapitation strike against Russia of all places is even remotely realistic, and the bar is as low as you suggest, there are dozens of ways to do it that are better and cheaper than this one.
Or more likely, it's all a semi-plausible excuse to have a problem with what NATO does in its claimed "sphere of influence" yet look like a victim instead of aspiring empire.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Nice parody you have there, but take it to the meme thread or something.

In theory...
But if that's where you want to draw the line, you have to apply it to everyone's high performance heavy SAMs, not just American ones.
In reality, it would be wasteful due to the sheer size and cost of supporting resources such systems have (big ass ultra expensive radars)...
While if one aims to do a nuclear sneak attacks with few dozens of missiles, there are sneakier and more effective ways that are much cheaper while at it. Stationary facility? And not in the middle of icy/sandy wasteland, but a well populated area? Really?

For that matter, we used to have nuclear-tipped versions of our high performance SAMs since the 1950s; the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-8 Talos both had nuclear warhead options. This was eliminated in the 1980s when the Navy officially canceled its requirement for a nuclear version of the RIM-67 Standard missile, as it was judged to not actually be a useful capability.

In other words, the idea that this is some kind of dangerous threat capability, is contradicted by a solid dose of reality.

 

[Agent23]

For that matter, we used to have nuclear-tipped versions of our high performance SAMs since the 1950s; the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-8 Talos both had nuclear warhead options. This was eliminated in the 1980s when the Navy officially canceled its requirement for a nuclear version of the RIM-67 Standard missile, as it was judged to not actually be a useful capability.

In other words, the idea that this is some kind of dangerous threat capability, is contradicted by a solid dose of reality.

Yeah, how many kilotons?

Oh, yeah, right, they were probably sub-kiloton.

Speed-wise, I doubt they would have been able to contend with something built to intercept ICBMs.

And we all know the Eternal Bronekokoshka will say and do anything to push his side of the argument across so...

 

[LTR]

Just shoot the fuckers ... IQ will go up, up and AWAY!

Just general advice to please refrain from FedPosting on our Website. It's not against the rules per se, but it certainly is poor form.

Unless your a Fed of course.