The Guardian calls for NATO to declare war on Russia
(archive.ph)
Comments (60)
sorted by:
your money laundering fake country is not worth global nuclear war. not one inch of it.
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF JOE BIDEN'S CHILDREN!!!
Joe's son conveniently gets booted out of the Navy before WWIII kicks off.
Stop arguing that Russia is going to fire nukes. It's not, okay? If Russia nukes us, we would nuke them back. Russians, including Putin, don't want to get nuked, therefore they won't fire nukes. This is called MAD. It worked successfully throughout the whole Cold War. There is no reason to believe that it would not still work now.
Also, "global"? Russia stands alone, my friend. Russia has no allies. There would be nothing "global" about NATO bombing some Russians in Ukraine. It would be a very limited war. Russia would not even retaliate against any NATO countries. Know why? Because if it did, then NATO would open up on targets in Russia. Russia loses that fight. It loses that fight 10 out of 10 times.
Here is what would ACTUALLY happen if NATO aircraft began launching strikes:
Russians would get obliterated in short order. The Russian SAM defenses would be easily swept aside because they are a paper tiger completely incapable of dealing with either stealth or jamming SEAD operations.
The bulk of the Russian military would flee, with or without orders. Many would desert and run for their lives. The Russians aren't willing to die to an unseen enemy that completely outclasses them for the sake of Putin's ego.
Ukraine would advance and recapture everything.
Putin would bunker up and might very well be killed in the coup or uprising that would follow his utter humiliation.
You all need to wake up and accept the reality that Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a joke compared to what the USSR used to be. It's a rump state, a shadow. It's a relatively poor country with a big but obsolete military, getting clowned on by an even poorer country that should have been an easy kill.
You've basically defined MAD out of existence. Basically, you've stated that because no party actually wants destruction, nuclear weapons will never be used, and thus the different parties can freely attack each other with conventional weapons without MAD ever being an issue. As the Cold War showed, however, that isn't how MAD works. Instead, MAD means that neither party will ever risk a direct confrontation because the consequences of even a small conflict could lead to MAD, and no one wants to take that risk.
The corollary to mutual assured destruction is that Russia can use a nuke in a regional war not involving a nuclear power because they know no power will retaliate for fear of triggering full out nuclear war.
What keeps them from using in a regional war is social pressure from other peer countries. They won't use a nuke in Ukraine because other countries would see it as crossing the Rubicon and isolate them (also Ukrainians are basically Russians).
But if the West almost totally isolates Russia so they can only trade with China or 3rd world shitholes, then this pressure is gone and they can freely use nukes.
Stalin and Mao didn't care in Korea.
MacArthur to want to nuke at least the Chinks (or more exactly their airfields and bridges near the border), but he was removed for that.
Nuclear powers also directly fought in Vietnam (chiefly the air war over North Vietnam). Again nothing happened.
If by directly you mean covertly and constantly lying about it sure
Uhh no.
Yes, nukes cancel out and conventional weapons are still able to be used.
Yes, it is actually.
Not true at all. Look at the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy was willing to start launching air attacks on Cuba. Khrushchev backed down because he realized Castro was a lunatic who was saying he was totally happy to die to take down America. That was a unique situation and MAD STILL worked because the Russians didn't want to die, so they backed down.
The Russians acted in escalatory ways plenty of times in the Cold War, and in some cases so did the US. MAD proved itself time and time again to work because nobody was willing to launch 1st out of fear of retaliation.
MAD also prevented chemical weapons from being used in WW2.
YOUR formulation means that Russia can just keep invading everyone and nobody will ever do shit because they fear Russia's nukes and are frozen with fear. That's not only a load of shit, it would INCENTIVIZE Russia to act very aggressively with its nukes and to even use them since it could see how afraid of them everyone else was.
You're underappreciating the brinkmanship behind MAD. A NATO attack brings us much closer to it than an invasion of Ukraine. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a better analog of the former, which is why it was resolved without conflict and doesn't support your point. The Cold War was just invasion after invasion with the 2 main contenders always in the corner or fighting lesser opponents. Russia actually can just keep invading "everyone", like America did, until NATO says "raise you" or pre-empts them.
In the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Soviet and Chinese pilots flew missions using their own aircraft against US pilots, and fought them directly.
Stop pretending that it didn't happen, or that if we had American "volunteers" flying F22s over Ukraine and blowing the shit out of Russians, that would be any different than what the USSR did to us in the Cold War.
Stop pretending what didn't happen? You didn't even attempt to actually process what I wrote. You can take the man out of Reddit...
It was rather Che than Castro.
There were instances of chemical warfare in WWII, especially in China. (Biological too.)
No it was Castro. Nobody gives a shit about Che. He wasn't the leader. Please consult the wikipedia at least before you "correct" me.
It was Che who was excited about actual nuclear war.
Castro's slogan "socialism or death" didn't really shorten to "death".
Ok bro you made me pull up the wiki:
Why Khrushchev blinked:
Basically Castro was a lunatic that didn't care if Cuba got glassed. Maybe he thought he would get 40 virgin gopniks in Communism. Castro affirmed his desire for nuclear war in an interview in 1992, and then expressed regret in 2010.
Khrushchev did not want nuclear war. Castro did. Khrushchev knew that he couldn't control Castro from Moscow, so rather than give Castro the opportunity to start WW3, Khrushchev rug pulled him and caved in. Khrushchev "lost" and suffered a loss of face, because that was preferable to death.
While there might be an occasional lunatic like Castro out there, the Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenal is safeguarded against such people. It is controlled by people who don't want to die anymore than NATO does, which is why this nuclear brinkmanship from Putin, if it works, will create a very dangerous situation, which is why we need to stand up to it and not allow him to think that it is working. Show no fear.
i don't care. my life and wellbeing is not worth this fake puppet country.
Why haven't they done that then? Sounds easy and with zero consequences to themselves.
because politicians are pussies and never want to escalate anything unless they run it by some polling firms and focus groups.
even their sanctions are limp dick.
Fun fact: The US has lost the ability to make the detonation material for nukes. We've been cannibalizing out existing arsenal to keep some portion of the bombs active. So our nuclear capacity is shrinking over time. Its very likely most or even all of our bombs will soon be duds.
That does not make sense. Nukes are detonated by lensed conventional explosives.
Tritium.
https://lynceans.org/all-posts/u-s-tritium-production-for-the-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-not-like-the-old-days-of-the-cold-war/
Apparent trtium production restarted: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.183/gkz.aeb.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Timeline-4_Modern-CLWR-tritium-production-converted.pdf
It's being done with nuclear reactors controlled by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which your link does talk about as well. Basically the issue is just that we didn't need to produce tritium for a while because there was so much of it freely available from decommissioned warheads, so the production cycle atrophied and is now being rebuilt.
The nukes would still work without it, just at lower yields. Still, I don't think there's any chance the Air Force is going to neglect it to the point of not keeping enough for its W87 and W88 warheads.
Tritium is made in nuclear reactors, and we've been shutting them all down. The government no longer values skills over ideology, and doesn't understand what they are doing anymore.
https://lynceans.org/all-posts/u-s-tritium-production-for-the-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-not-like-the-old-days-of-the-cold-war/
All of our current nuclear warheads are "boosted yield" systems, where tritium is injected into the warhead just before detonation to increase weapon yield. But tritium has a half-life of just over 12 years, and once it decays, it becomes a neutron absorber, thus reducing weapon yield.
Problem is, there's no major producer of tritium in the US anymore... we just buy ours from overseas.
NRC looked at restarting tritium production (easiest method is to put boron rods into a reactor) around the turn of the century. The public protested, and the project was cancelled.
Russia will be getting armed drones from Iran, for example. (They might then use them to counter the HIMARS rampage.)
They have also stuff from China, who can give them electronics and other modern technology to bypass the sanctions in exchange for raw resources.
Shitty iranian drones can't do shit to HIMARS. Existing Russian drones are already better than what Iran has.
The reason Russia is going to Iran is because Russian drones are being lost and breaking down thanks to heavy use, and they will eventually start to run out, so they are barrel scraping looking for replacements.
Chinese electronics are joke tier. China makes low end shit, not the high end shit used for military applications. China was still forced to import aircraft engines from Russia until recently because China was unable to build an aircraft engine - which is something Israel was able to do many decades ago.
Iranian are much better than Russian, who are lagging hilariously and always did. Especially their loitering munitions are second only to Israeli.
Russians also use Chinese civilian drones already.
I don't believe for a second that Iranian technology is impressive or high end in any way. Iran has long been a paper tiger that makes fake propaganda weapons.
They have extensively used these drones in Yemen and in the attacks on Saudi Arabia.
Didn't they do 1 attack on SA that was just basically just ghetto cruise missiles into an undefended target? Not really impressive. It only worked because SA was caught sleeping, and it only happened once and never again.
So here's what I don't understand: NATO's motto is "an attack on one is an attack on all", but that means the reverse is also true- war waged with a single NATO state means war with all 30.
Why doesn't Russia simply state that a war against 30 nations is an existential threat that justifies the full use of its military, to include nuclear weapons? And that in order to maximize its chances for survival, upon indications that a war has begun it will immediately launch nuclear weapons at the capitals of every NATO state with the remainder of its arsenal being targeted to maximize damage to the US and the UK.
I mean, sure, Russia would get glassed too, but that's cold comfort when it has effectively destroyed every country in western Europe and the United States. Basically, if they want a de-escalate this they need to convince NATO that it will result in World War III if they intervene.
I believe they already have, and Western media portrayed it as "Madman Putin Must Be Stopped - Threatens to Destroy World With Nuclear Weapons".
That’s kind of the point of mutually assured destruction and why it’s nothing more than sending arms and money to Ukraine. They did the same in Korea and Vietnam, and we did it to each other in Afghanistan. This is just the new proxy front of a new Cold War.
Part of the reason why there’s no nato forces in Ukraine is for that very reason. Russia is probably being a bit measured with its Sabre rattling as well since taking Ukraine on paper should not have been this difficult for them. They aren’t losing. But this isn’t the similar to the 6 day war results anyone was expecting either. Which leads to a wide range of questions from their command structure to does their tech actually perform as well as they say it does. Which also may have them doubting their delivery method for their bombs.
I wouldn't take too much credit from them. They know all eyes are on them right now and likely don't want to show off every tool in their arsenal. They are probably not operating anywhere near their peak just so they have aces left in case things do escalate.
The whole war stinks from both sides on how its played out, so I wouldn't be surprised if its being drug out for some unseen objective either side is waiting on the other for.
The Soviets did send combat troops to fight in (North) Korea and Vietnam (North Vietnam, also KGB in Laos).
I think it's a threat that is so obvious that it need not be made. Though I think they would start with tactical nukes, and move to strategic ones only when NATO reacts with nukes.
And the problem with threats is that they have to have credibility. In the scenario where it would be necessary for Russia to make the threat, NATO may not believe that Russia would react to war by launching a suicidal rain of nukes.
Unfortunately, this all makes wholesale destruction so much more likely.
The guardian staff is free to volunteer to go fight for Ukraine. I’m not interested in nuclear war to protect one of the most corrupt governments in Eastern Europe from one of the other most corrupt governments in Eastern Europe
Assange:
100%, I almost want to ban all media. Individuals can say and post whatever they want, but any organization that claims to exist to report news is a propaganda machine or will become one.
If that is what it takes to get nukes dropped on NY, DC, Sanfran and LA then I fully support it.
We should send these fags to ukraine
The Guardian has always been a stupid paper. Below the line on the 'Comment is Free' articles used to be great to read years ago. They used to tear them apart.
The moment the western globalists declare war on Russia and deploy troops, we should be starting the revolutionary war.
No excuse not to.
It's better to keep the war going as long as possible to bleed out the Russians as long as possible. Russia doesn't have the ability to replace its losses from this war ever. It's losses are a permanent downgrade it will never recover from. So its better to leave its military capacity in as much of a shambles as possible, that way it can't ever threaten anyone else.
Russia's the only country on earth resisting globalism. It's better to leave its military in the best shape possible, so they can threaten every other globalist on earth.
No, Russia doesn't give a flying fuck about "globalism", it only wants to build its own evil empire like the USSR part 2.
The only true warriors against globalism are the right wing political parties in western countries.
That's funny, because Putin regularly talks about globalists and western satanists. He even kicked all the globalist oligarchs out of his country upon taking power. I guess it's just because he's evil? That's what the news says anyways.
Yes, it's called propaganda aimed at getting the Right on his side in his enemy countries by appealing to them with Alex-Jokes-like talking points. He doesn't mean any of it.
Don't fall for his bullshit.
If he didn't mean any of it, he wouldn't have kicked the oligarchs out of his country. He wouldn't resist the encroach of NATO. Moreover, globalists wouldn't be trying to demonize Russia and drum up war support against them. In the case of a globalist takeover and a Russian takeover, I'd pick Russia anyways.
As you're someone who's miming talking points from mainstream media, I'd ask you not to take inappropriate and hypocritical jabs.
As you're someone who's miming talking points from ~mainstream media~ Vladimir Putin. Reflect on that.
Then you're a lunatic. Russia is a shithole country next to the EU or US.
Let's come back to this in a few years, then.
EU is not a country you moron.