they're actively trying to make sure that everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
I was with you until this. Stop with the idiotic nuclear threats already. Every time you do it, you are part of the problem. It's honestly reached (China's final warning)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning] levels. I'm going to start calling that "Antonio's final nuke threat".
If Putin got arrested somehow, Russia isn't going to nuke anyone. They'd just replace him and the new guy probably wouldn't even want him back.
That all said, I have to laugh at this:
Sources at the international criminal court said they thought it was now “very unlikely” that Vladimir Putin would travel to any country currently supporting Ukraine. If he did so he risked arrest, they pointed out. “The Russia president’s travel options have become extremely limited,” a source said.
Oh wait, it's in their little Rome statute: Article 98 Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender
The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.
If Putin got arrested somehow, Russia isn't going to nuke anyone. They'd just replace him and the new guy probably wouldn't even want him back.
It's not even about Putin or his imaginary arrest. It's about the provocation. Imagine if the ICC, the UN, or some other global body issued an arrest warrant for Joe Biden. That's a major issue, even though they can't follow up on it. It would make the US more hostile, escalate tensions, and that could lead to nuclear conflict.
It's not about the removal of Putin, it's about antagonizing him and Russia. As well as backing them into a corner.
Personally, I don't think it will reach the stages of nuclear conflict, but we're also closer than we've been in decades, and this certainly inches millimeters us closer still. The chances of nukes are slim, but they do seem to be doing everything they can to make it slightly less slim, and that's still worrying.
I doubt it. If the supply chains are destroyed, people will riot on scales never before seen, especially here in the US. Losing food supplies would result in total collapse of everything our overlords have worked on building.
even though they can't follow up on it. It would make the US more hostile, escalate tensions, and that could lead to nuclear conflict.
I don't think so. I think this is trivial compared to the fact that the EU is supplying Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and supplies.
it's about antagonizing him and Russia. As well as backing them into a corner.
Nobody is "backed into a corner" and everyone should feel free to "antagonize" Russia without exhibiting fear of a nuclear holocaust.
If I'm not going to be afraid of antagonizing trannies, I'm sure as fuck not going to be afraid of antagonizing Russia.
they do seem to be doing everything they can to make it slightly less slim, and that's still worrying.
It's actually your worrying that is the problem. The more you exhibit fear of nuclear weapons, the more incentive you give to Russia and China to make nuclear threats a staple of their foreign policy. The more a country relies upon and places its hopes in nuke threats to obtain its foreign policy goals, and the more they persist in this because their intelligence agencies are reading comments like yours and telling them that people fear their nukes, the more likely it is to actually use nukes when those goals consistently fail.
So ironically, it is your expressed fear of nukes that are going to get us nuked, if anything.
I think this is trivial compared to the fact that the EU is supplying Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and supplies.
I agree those are bigger issues, but it all adds up, doesn't it? Also, not sure why you're focusing on the EU, when the US is the primary provider of military aid, by a massive margin.
Nobody is "backed into a corner"
Of course they're getting backed into a corner, most of the world is openly against Russia.
and everyone should feel free to "antagonize" Russia without exhibiting fear of a nuclear holocaust.
That's really reductive. Also, it depends on the level of antagonism. Globalist arrest warrants for the leader of a country does seem like a pretty big one.
If I'm not going to be afraid of antagonizing trannies, I'm sure as fuck not going to be afraid of antagonizing Russia.
And you shouldn't be. Antagonize away, my man. But you're also not issuing arrest warrants for Putin, or providing billions in military aid to Ukraine. So there's a slight difference of scale going on.
It's actually your worrying that is the problem. The more you exhibit fear of nuclear weapons, the more incentive you give to Russia and China to make nuclear threats a staple of their foreign policy.
I didn't say I'm worried or afraid, I said it is worrying in the general sense. Also, if randos like me on the internet can shape Russian and Chinese foreign policy, that's something special. Again, there's an issue of scale here.
The more a country relies upon and places its hopes in nuke threats to obtain its foreign policy goals, and the more they persist in this because their intelligence agencies are reading comments like yours and telling them that people fear their nukes, the more likely it is to actually use nukes when those goals consistently fail.
So ironically, it is your expressed fear of nukes that are going to get us nuked, if anything.
That's absurd. Talking candidly about nuclear powers on the internet isn't going to lead to nuking.
And people have been worried about the nuclear issue for decades, it's a known - if relatively slim - danger. Acting like it's not, or that nuclear weapons will never be used (again), just doesn't wash. Of course a proxy war between two heavily armed nuclear powers is going to further increase that small risk. Again, not saying it will happen, and I don't think it will, but the chances are going up. Of course they are. And that's something to discuss.
I think this is trivial compared to the fact that the EU is supplying Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and supplies.
Thing is that weapons and supplies can be destroyed, while this would be an absolutely humiliating climbdown for the corrupt Empire. What, Putin made peace so we're going to withdraw our indictment, showing that it was nakedly political from the very beginning?
If I'm not going to be afraid of antagonizing trannies, I'm sure as fuck not going to be afraid of antagonizing Russia.
Trannies don't have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the greatest energy sources in the world, the largest landmass, and and infinite amount of USSR-era weapons.
It's ironic that you're anti-tranny and yet want to destroy the one country standing against it, presumably to replace it with some puppet leader who turns Russia into another Globohomo hellhole (in your fantasies).
The more you exhibit fear of nuclear weapons, the more incentive you give to Russia and China to make nuclear threats a staple of their foreign policy.
You seem to think that if you put your head in the sand, the Bad Nukes will go away.
The more a country relies upon and places its hopes in nuke threats to obtain its foreign policy goals, and the more they persist in this because their intelligence agencies are reading comments like yours and telling them that people fear their nukes, the more likely it is to actually use nukes when those goals consistently fail.
Odds of that are zero. Nukes aren't used because they think people are 'afraid' of them.
What, Putin made peace so we're going to withdraw our indictment, showing that it was nakedly political from the very beginning?
Everything the ICC does is obviously nakedly political to everyone. The whole point of the ICC is "we say we are the good guys, and everyone we target are the bad guys". That's why the US fought the ICC so much, because when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unpopular the ICC wanted to come after us.
Trannies don't have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world
See this is what I'm talking about. You think I'm afraid of Russia nuking me? "hey this guy is talking shit online! let's end the world over it!!!" LOL dude.
the largest landmass
No idea why people always resort to this cope. Most of Russia's "land" is frozen uninhabited siberian wasteland with no value whatsoever.
Canada has a shitload of useless frozen land, too, but you don't see them trying to brag about it.
and infinite amount of USSR-era weapons.
LOL no, they used them all up in Ukraine this past year. Russia has exhausted its stockpiles and is now stuck with just its new construction capacity.
It's ironic that you're anti-tranny and yet want to destroy the one country standing against it
Also if the Russian trannies were willing to operate are regime shock troops like the Kadyrovites do, Putin would be dressing up in leather chaps and marching with them. He has no principles and will do whatever benefits his power in the moment.
presumably to replace it with some puppet leader who turns Russia into another Globohomo hellhole (in your fantasies).
It would be a huge improvement for the world, most of all Russia, for the Russians to let go of their delusions of empire, accept their relative weakness, and decide to work within the system instead of against it. Japan was able to do this and thrive. Japan remains a relatively conservative society which has been a counterbalancing force against globohomo. Russia could be an even stronger oppositional force once it bends the geopolitical knee, as it must, and it will. Poland and Hungaray and some other eastern european countries are doing more to fight globohomo culture than Russia ever has, but that could change once Russia becomes a democracy and joins the world community as a supportive participant instead of an enemy.
You seem to think that if you put your head in the sand, the Bad Nukes will go away.
False, but exhibiting fear instead of relying on MAD makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely. You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. If you truly feared nukes, you'd keep your mouth shut and your fears to yourself. Since you are very loud about it, I can only conclude that you want a world where the risk of actual nuclear use is higher, not lower.
Odds of that are zero. Nukes aren't used because they think people are 'afraid' of them.
Nuke THREATS are made because evil empires think weak democracies fear them. Evil empires see democracies as being inherently weak because they are controlled by the common people and not elites (you might not believe this, but Russia and China do), and evil empires seek to exploit this weakness through manipulation of the democratic populace.
If they believe that their nuke threats are finding fertile ground and that they are succeeding in stoking the fears in that populace, they will escalate their threats. If people who side with the policy objectives of the evil empires parrot these nuke threats and fears, the evil empire will conclude that it needs to bolster its useful idiot advocates within the enemy population by escalating its nuke threats.
If any nuke threat ever is believed by any evil empire to have actually contributed to helping it achieve any goals, nuke threats will become a major part of its foreign policy.
Whenever a threat is made, the thing threatened becomes more likely, because once the "bluff" is called, the bluffer loses face and loses all credibility, unless he decides it shouldn't be a bluff after all, and pulls the trigger in an effort to save face and credibility.
So yes, exhibiting fear of nukes -> nuke threats -> nuclear brinkmanship as foreign policy -> much higher risk of actual nuclear use.
Responding to nuke threats with punishment, and showing no fear but rather invoking MAD, is the best way to minimize the risk of actual nuclear use.
The biggest problem in the world right now re: nukes is that nobody thinks limp dick Joe Biden would actually authorize nuclear retaliation. This perception on weakness invites nuclear first use. The United States didn't used to be like this. We used to be a strong nation that was feared. Electing weaklings like Biden makes the world a far more dangerous place. It isn't a coincidence that Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, mere months after Biden cucked out in Afghanistan. Putin made a calculation based on his perception of Biden's weakness.
That's why the US fought the ICC so much, because when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unpopular the ICC wanted to come after us.
The US fought the ICC because it wants impunity for its many wars of aggression. It has nothing to fear from these 'international institutions', who are nothing more than puppets, but it's still so paranoid that it wants to prevent th smallest chance.
See this is what I'm talking about. You think I'm afraid of Russia nuking me? "hey this guy is talking shit online! let's end the world over it!!!" LOL dude.
You said they'd do it if they read comments expressing concerns about nuclear war. And you were obviously saying that you want Russia to be messed with by your government.
No idea why people always resort to this cope. Most of Russia's "land" is frozen uninhabited siberian wasteland with no value whatsoever.
Being very large has many advantages, as well as disadvantages. Hell, if Russia was a small country with similar 'stats', I don't think it would have been nearly as important historically.
LOL no, they used them all up in Ukraine this past year. Russia has exhausted its stockpiles and is now stuck with just its new construction capacity.
Apparently, Ukraine has used 15 year worth of US production, and it will take years to replenish. Not sure if that is real or just propaganda by the military-industrial complex begging for more freebees. I'm shocked at the non-existent industrial production in both the US and Russia.
Nope. Russia isn't even a leader on anti-LGBT laws. LGBTs are legal in Russia and only have issues if they protest. Throughout Africa and the Muslim world, LGBTs are still outlawed.
Russia is the only European country where LGBTP is not accepted. Even countries like Poland have about 50% support for homosexual marriage. Now, I don't mind, but it's a sign of further societal decay. Ukraine is also pretty based, but not quite so based as Russia.
Also if the Russian trannies were willing to operate are regime shock troops like the Kadyrovites do, Putin would be dressing up in leather chaps and marching with them. He has no principles and will do whatever benefits his power in the moment.
It's very funny that you pretend Biden has principles, and Putin doesn't. Even though Putin may actually be a Christian, something no American leader is. I read that Putin was marginalized in the KGB for being a Christian. It was touching.
Japan remains a relatively conservative society which has been a counterbalancing force against globohomo.
Japan is like the Baltic states in that it goes along with everything. Internally, things are also going in the wrong direction, with more acceptance of homosexuality. Everywhere the US imposes its system, societal collapse follows. Even in Egypt when they forced out Mubarak, and the Islamic fundamentalists came to power. Even there, the government was more tolerant of homosexuality than before, or after.
Like I said, I don't mind, but I do mind that it's US imperialism forcing it down everyone's throats.
Poland and Hungaray and some other eastern european countries are doing more to fight globohomo culture than Russia ever has,
They are only one US-sponsored color revolution/coup away from complete collapse though. I like Poland and I like Hungary, but I don't think they can survive as traditional societies. Not in the EU, not under the yoke of the Americans.
False, but exhibiting fear instead of relying on MAD makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely. You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. If you truly feared nukes, you'd keep your mouth shut and your fears to yourself. Since you are very loud about it, I can only conclude that you want a world where the risk of actual nuclear use is higher, not lower.
That makes no sense. If you don't want nuclear war, you make a noise about it so the criminals in charge of your country won't drag you into one.
Evil empires see democracies as being inherently weak because they are controlled by the common people and not elites (you might not believe this, but Russia and China do),
Putin recently said that Russia calling others 'unfriendly peoples' should actually be 'unfriendly elites'. He knows better than to think that "common people" control anything in the West, which is a high absurdity. Ursula von der Leyen was threatening Italian voters if they voted the 'wrong' way. Hungary is punished by the EU for outlawing the grooming of kids in schools. Basically, nowhere in Europe is there such a thing as 'democracy'. It's a label that they put on their corrupt oligarchies to make it sound better, and to coerce compliance same way they once cited divine right as legitimation for their statelets.
In China, there is actual elite control. A highly competent elite, which is what distinguishes it from the clownshow in the West.
If they believe that their nuke threats are finding fertile ground and that they are succeeding in stoking the fears in that populace, they will escalate their threats.
It's not Putin's threats that worry me. I'd be equally worried if he had said nothing at all about nukes. Capabilities are what matter, not intentions. It's a foundational tenet of realism.
If people who side with the policy objectives of the evil empires
I'll never side with the policy objectives of the evil empires, the US and the EU.
Whenever a threat is made, the thing threatened becomes more likely, because once the "bluff" is called, the bluffer loses face and loses all credibility, unless he decides it shouldn't be a bluff after all, and pulls the trigger in an effort to save face and credibility.
Realism suggests otherwise. That 'credibility' does not matter much at all, because other parties are smart enough to distinguish between vital national interests and hobby-horses. Do you remember the phony nuclear threats the USSR made in the Suez crisis? No one was stupid enough to believe them. But do you think that would in any way undermine a nuclear threat made regarding actual vital interests? Of course not!
The biggest problem in the world right now re: nukes is that nobody thinks limp dick Joe Biden would actually authorize nuclear retaliation. This perception on weakness invites nuclear first use.
???
If there's a nuclear first use, it will be because of Biden's warmongering.
We used to be a strong nation that was feared.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it fears you, as the world's foremost bully and thug, and rightly so.
It isn't a coincidence that Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, mere months after Biden cucked out in Afghanistan. Putin made a calculation based on his perception of Biden's weakness.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't seem unlikely that he thought the puppet government in Ukraine could be dislodged with ease, just like the puppet government in Afghanistan was. Why on earth would anyone fight for puppets of imperialist foreigners? Same reason no German should ever fight for his government.
Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality. China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility. In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power".
Also, fun note on the expense front. The expensive part of nuclear weapons isnt the warheads themselves. It is the maintenance on them to make sure they still retain the ability to actually go critical and create the nuclear boom. It is the single most expensive part of the US Nuclear Program. Now consider that Russia claims to have double our warheads...but half of our budget toward their nuclear program. I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
yeah, Russia clearly doesn't maintain a lot of their force, yet pretends that it is still ready to fire so they can point to big numbers on paper. We have seen with their invasion of Ukraine that Russia tends to focus on trying to look mighty on paper while neglecting real-world capability.
I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers.
I'm confused by why you think that not paying Russians salaries common in America (which has a higher cost of living) is "skimping". And I'm pretty sure many more people are employed than just engineers.
Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents
10 points if you manage to name the (supposed) country in which Chernobyl is located.
Regardless, Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon, and it was made a disaster because of the communist system, not because RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit
My theory that <RUSSIA BAD> is also not without merit.
Yeah, I don't know, I haven't inspected them, but you haven't given any reason to believe it.
If the warheads are in bad condition, which may be the cast, stealing of funds allocated will be the more likely reason than not enough allocated.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had.
The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded. It is completely mad, but they did it anyway. You yourself have also cited that incident with the submarine.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine, and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that, you will blame Biden and the "libs" for being too weak, or whatever. No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
I can only imagine a nuclear first strike happening as follows:
Israel would use nukes if it believed it was going to lose militarily against an opponent whose military/political objectives would result in the end of Israel as a jewish state.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
North Korea would use nukes in circumstances uncertain because it's such a black box shitshow over there that nobody really knows. Unlike they'd use them if they got bombed. If the regime elites felt like their personal situation was hopeless, they might flip the chess board, especially if China offered them sanctuary and secretly told them to launch. China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either. IMO NORK is the only true nuclear threat for this reason.
Short of the above, Russia will NOT use nukes because using them would do Russia more harm than good. Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes. The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
So in exchange for a small and temporary battlefield benefit, Russia becomes a total international pariah. Even China would be forced to totally embargo Russia, or else itself be subject to total trade embargoes. With even China and India cutting them off, Russia would totally collapse economically, as it simply doesn't have an internally self sustaining economy. It relies very heavily on trade to meet its basic needs.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed, which is exactly what would happen if Russia popped off even a single tactical nuke. Which is why it won't.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had. The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded.
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Castro was irrational but he never controlled the nukes. Khrushchev blinked because the shooting down of the U-2 by a Soviet missile violated direct orders from Moscow, and Cuban anti-aircraft fire against other US reconnaissance aircraft also violated direct orders from Khrushchev to Castro. AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders. Khrushchev also knew that he could not rely on the 162 tactical nukes to deter an invasion, because the Americans didn't know about them. So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
Therefore, when he heard Robert Kennedy had relayed to Dobrynin: "You have drawn first blood ... . [T]he president had decided against advice ... not to respond militarily to that attack, but he [Dobrynin] should know that if another plane was shot at, ... we would take out all the SAMs and antiaircraft ... . And that would almost surely be followed by an invasion."
This caused him to IMMEDIATELY back down, because based on all the information at his disposal, given his loss of control of Soviet forces in Cuba and their disobedience of his orders, this was the only way to prevent nuclear war.
Had the Soviets in Cuba actually reliably followed orders, he would not have needed to back down. It was poor discipline and a lack of trust in his own troops that forced that result.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational. While Castro was irrational, this only means that the lesson learned is to stop at nothing to prevent any irrational actor from getting nukes.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in democracies.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
ICBMs take 30-60 minutes flight time, during which they are easily and immediately spotted, and the US/USSR have systems in place to counter-launch before the "first strike" arrives. On top of that you have subs packing enough heat to glass you by themselves with no hope of preventing it.
The only time first striking becomes possible is if you have a VERY GOOD ABM interception system and LOTS of interceptors, but since the ABM system is more expensive than the nukes themselves, it's easily hard countered by simply building more nukes to saturate it. The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Definitely a case where they woudl be used. But India was the first to develop nuclear weapons, despite its own conventional superiority.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
Whether or not the Russians will face 'genocide' will make no difference. The regime there, as regimes everywhere, cares only about its own survival. If it does not survive, what does it matter if Russians do or don't face genocide - the incentives for the regime is the same.
China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either
Obviously, the elites don't care if their populations get glassed, except insofar as this prevents their exploitation of their population. The US doesn't want half its population to die, because that would rob it of half its tax base and cannon fodder, obviously not because they 'care about people' or whatever crap they make you believe.
Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes.
That's a tactical nuclear weapon. Also possible is a nuclear strike on say Lwow. Or even the use of small-yield nuclear devices on command and control, power, etc. There's also a great psychological blow of "we're being nuked". As you rightly pointed out, the ordinary bombing of Japan did more damage than did the nukes, but the nukes had greater effect.
The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
It's interesting that you pre-emptively addressed it, because I was just about to bring it up. Moreover, to be able to credibly pretend that you will defend NATO, you would have to use nuclear weapons in the Warsaw Pact, not tell Germany that you will nuke Soviet forces once they arrive in Germany.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed
What I like about you is that you make some observations about 'Russian elites' which are true of elites everywhere, and then pretend that it's solely applicable to Russian elites. It's like the Imp who says "I DON'T TRUST FEMALE POLITICIANS!" Suggesting that he does trust male politicains.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
He'd be completely insane to exchange American cities for some shithole in Ukraine. And since American elites do not want to lose half their tax base and cannon fodder, obviously he's not going to do that. I'm sure they have nuclear-proof bunkers for themselves while they let the rest of us die, but being able to waste 50% less money would be a blow.
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
American voters have no influence though, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That is why there is a Uniparty consensus. You didn't seriously think that the military-industrial complex would allow voters power over something as important as foreign policy?
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Yeah, it's pretty shocking, but I read that in Martin Sherwin's Gambling with Armageddon:
The first set of orders reflected the unadulterated fear shared by all. Pliyev was to put his forces "on alert", but was forbidden to use any of the nuclear weapons under his command (reversing the authority that Khrushchev had given him orally in July, when they discussed how he would defend his forces against an American invasion).
On reconsideration, however, such an order seemed pusillanimous. Why had tactical nuclear weapons been deployed with the troops if not not to defeat an "imperialist" invasion? The Cuban and Soviet troops would be outnumbered and outgunned. Those weapons - the nuclear-armed Lunas and FKR cruise missiles - were their only chance; they had to be used. So new orders were written that rescinded the restrictions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and, in so doing, accepted the possibility of precipitating a nuclear war.
AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders.
Can they even fire nukes without central authorization?
So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
It's funny that you call other people 'suicidal' for warning about the risks of nuclear war, while being an absolute jingoist about nuclear annihilation over... Cuba.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational.
He is? Because the West keeps flip-flopping on it depending on what they want to say at any given moment. And rationality here, by the way, means that you would engage in some nuclear brinkmanship. Putin's excessive caution has done a lot of harm to his country. (I guess you could describe excessive caution as 'rational'.)
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
The analogy is that you think that just because you got lucky, it will continue like that forever.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in [lol] democracies.
Yes, and it's a political objective is a nuclear arsenal is of any actual use, not if it's completely useless. You lose as much prestige with a large nuclear arsenal as you win. China does not even need a large nuclear arsenal, because it has the industrial might and population to dominate conventionally.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
I distinctly recall you saying many times that "no, no, nuclear weapons will NEVER be used because MAD". Like I said, this is the first time you've said that they might be used under some circumstances.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
Yes, that's my point. If you can limit the damage done to say 50% of your country rather than 100%, then that would be damage limitaton.
The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Not sure where, but I've read an IR guy make a similar argument. That without an ABM, a country like NK could fire 1 nuclear missile at a US base and dare the US to respond and get glassed. With ABM, it would have to fire 50 for 1 to get through, and that's obviously of a different order than 1.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
Which again underlines my point: if the Russians want others to believe that they have a lot of nukes, when they don't (so you claim), then obviously having nukes provides the Russians with some benefit, which it wouldn't if nuclear war would only happen in a Barbarossa-type scenario.
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
Am I happy with the continued existence of a Ukraine? No. But there's no denying that things are a victory as it is.
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger. You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country? No. This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime. You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
Unprecedented powers in leeching. Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.
But India was the first to develop nuclear weapons, despite its own conventional superiority.
India has to worry about China, and China has nukes, so India needed nukes as well to not get bullied by China.
Japan proves you don't need nukes to be a great power, however.
Whether or not the Russians will face 'genocide' will make no difference. The regime there, as regimes everywhere, cares only about its own survival. If it does not survive, what does it matter if Russians do or don't face genocide - the incentives for the regime is the same.
Nah, Hitler did not use chemical weapons even though his regime was clearly going to fall. Japan didn't, either. Neither of them would have used nukes if they had them for the exact same reason.
Germany & Japan also prove that even losing a war by conquest or unconditional surrender is only a temporary setback that can be overcome in a few years provided the conquerors don't plan on occupying and subjugating you long term. The Japanese government surrendered despite loads of propaganda to fight to the death, and when officers tried a coup to reverse the surrender decision, it went nowhere and immediately failed.
If you're a Russian military officer and NATO armies are invading Russia, and you don't push the button, the worst that happens is that Russia becomes a democracy. If anything your family might get a better life. You push that button? Your family dies. It's an easy choice. Very, very few Russians are willing to die for the "regime" as opposed to saving themselves and their families.
The US doesn't want half its population to die, because that would rob it of half its tax base and cannon fodder, obviously not because they 'care about people' or whatever crap they make you believe.
Wrong. Americans genuinely care about one another, if a little less about political enemies. 9/11 proved that beyond all doubt. It doesn't matter that 9/11 killed a bunch of jews and libtards, Red America rose up willing to fight to avenge it.
Your mentality is correct as to China, Russia, North Korea, Myanmar, and some other shitholes, but it isn't true at all in modern democracies.
It's interesting that you pre-emptively addressed it, because I was just about to bring it up. Moreover, to be able to credibly pretend that you will defend NATO, you would have to use nuclear weapons in the Warsaw Pact, not tell Germany that you will nuke Soviet forces once they arrive in Germany.
Doctrine for nukes in war is that you hit all the enemy bases, airfields, and logistics hubs. Russia has a poor intelligence picture of Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine can still operate fighters proves that. There is absolutely no excuse for Russia to have not taken out the Ukrainian air force, but Ukraine was able to disperse its aircraft in the early days of the war and operate them out of temporary, improvised bases. You can't nuke a target if you can't find it.
So tactical nukes wouldn't be a magic bullet for Russia. Ordering a full mobilization would be far less costly for Russia while also being more militarily effective.
What I like about you is that you make some observations about 'Russian elites' which are true of elites everywhere, and then pretend that it's solely applicable to Russian elites. It's like the Imp who says "I DON'T TRUST FEMALE POLITICIANS!" Suggesting that he does trust male politicains.
Because it isn't true. Democracy greatly limits elite power. The leftist elites were able to successfully stop Bernie Sanders, twice, by manipulating blacks, but they couldn't stop Trump. Elites are just one faction in American society, they don't run the place like they do in Russia. In Russia there is no convincing necessary, whatever the elites agree on is going to be what happens, 0 fucks given about what the public at large thinks.
By contrast, Biden chose to ignore the Chinese spy balloon, then then the public at large didn't like that, he immediately reversed course and overcompensated by shooting down children's party balloons with F-22s.
He'd be completely insane to exchange American cities for some shithole in Ukraine. And since American elites do not want to lose half their tax base and cannon fodder, obviously he's not going to do that. I'm sure they have nuclear-proof bunkers for themselves while they let the rest of us die, but being able to waste 50% less money would be a blow.
Elites are smart enough to know that your logic leads to death regardless. If Russia nukes and we don't nuke back, then Russia will just nuke again, and again, and again, and again, until Russia finally nukes something we must nuke back for, and then we end up in exactly the same place we started, except at a much greater disadvantage because we let Russia nuke our side many times before we found our spine.
This was the lesson Hitler taught for all time when he kept eating one country after another and said "I promise this is the last one" and the cowards just let him do it the first few times. Never again. Hence why the strong reaction to stop Putin in Ukraine.
American voters have no influence though, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That is why there is a Uniparty consensus. You didn't seriously think that the military-industrial complex would allow voters power over something as important as foreign policy?
The American voter is the most powerful force in America. The American voter ultimately decides policy in this country, both through elections in a big way, and through polling in a day-to-day way. Biden constantly changes policy when the polls don't go his way. Afghanistan was one time he didn't, but he paid dearly for that and it made him scared to do it again.
There is no such thing as the "military-industrial complex" that's just a propaganda meme from the Left. All the defense contractors don't meet in a shadowy room and scheme, they mostly hate each other because they're competitors.
And there is no "uniparty consensus", Biden took office and abandoned Afghanistan even though it was something the Republicans were strongly against. Had Trump won, he would have been pressured into stopping his limp dick nonsense and putting more troops back in to prevent a collapse.
Yeah, it's pretty shocking, but I read that in Martin Sherwin's Gambling with Armageddon:
It has been debated but it's wrong. here is the source:
During the fifth and final conference in Havana, General Anatoly
Gribkov, who was a colonel at the time of the crisis and heavily involved
in the planning of the missile operation known now as operation "Anadyr",
surprised many participants by claiming that General Pliyev had Moscow's
permission to launch a nuclear strike against the United States in the event
the U.S. invaded Cuba (here it is not understood whether airstrikes
constituted an invasion, or if actual ground forces had to be a part of the
invasionary forces).135
There is much debate currently as to the validity of Gribkov's
statement. Mark Kramer sees Gribkov's account as nothing more than a
way for an overzealous conference participant to grab some publicity.
Other scholars like James Blight and Robert McNamara were eager to take
Gribkov's testimony at face value. Gribkov later that same year, in an
interview for Krasnaya Zvesda (Red Star) in November 1992, retracted his
earlier tale.136 [Kramer, Tactical, 43.]
In the beginning of 1994, Gribkov published a book with U.S.
general William Y. Smith, which seems to put the question of ICBM
control to rest. In the book, which appeared in April 1994, Gribkov
appears to back-away from his startling Havana statements by writing,
"Hours before receiving the translation of Kennedy's address, however,
Khrushchev and his colleagues had also agreed on measures to reduce the
risk that conflict over Cuba might lead to general war. One such action
was a coded telegram sent at 11:30 P.M. Moscow time that reached us in
Havana some thirty minutes before the U.S. President began his broadcast.
Addressed to Trostnik - Comrade Pavlov (code for Soviet headquarters on
Cuba), and signed by Defense Minister Rodian Y. Malinovsky as Director,
the message contained both a call to arms and a prohibition on the use of
atomic arms. Instructing Pliyev to prepare to fight, it also hedged his
authority to use any part of his nuclear arsenal in the event of fighting."137 [Gribkov and Smith, Operation, 62.]
So new orders were written that rescinded the restrictions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and, in so doing, accepted the possibility of precipitating a nuclear war.
Such orders were written but were not approved or signed or communicated to the Soviets in Cuba. They were just drafts.
Can they even fire nukes without central authorization?
Yes. The tactical nukes did not have any special security safeguards or "locks". The Soviets were also concerned that the Cubans could potentially seize the weapons and fire them themselves without Soviet approval.
It's funny that you call other people 'suicidal' for warning about the risks of nuclear war, while being an absolute jingoist about nuclear annihilation over... Cuba.
I'm not a "jingoist", I'm merely stating the facts as they were believed at the time, and they were rightfully believed.
He is? Because the West keeps flip-flopping on it depending on what they want to say at any given moment. And rationality here, by the way, means that you would engage in some nuclear brinkmanship. Putin's excessive caution has done a lot of harm to his country. (I guess you could describe excessive caution as 'rational'.)
Putin is obviously rational and calculating. I couldn't care less what some libtard writes in the NYT or Wapo. Putin's caution is a reflection of the fact that he doesn't hold absolute power in Russia and therefore has to proceed in a way that is compromising and limited in order to ensure he gets cooperation within his regime. Ask for too much sacrifice, and people start to balk.
Yes, that's my point. If you can limit the damage done to say 50% of your country rather than 100%, then that would be damage limitaton.
If I only need 100 ICBMs to glass you, and I have 1,000, and you take 50% of them out somehow, you've accomplished nothing. You just reduced the layers of glass from 10 to 5.
Not sure where, but I've read an IR guy make a similar argument. That without an ABM, a country like NK could fire 1 nuclear missile at a US base and dare the US to respond and get glassed. With ABM, it would have to fire 50 for 1 to get through, and that's obviously of a different order than 1.
Limited nuclear exchanges are extremely dangerous because they are far more likely. When I told you what MAD stops, MAD stops a general nuclear exchange. It also reduces the odds of a 1-shot attack, but such an attack is far more likely if the attacker sees the defender as weak-willed and unwilling to respond, or excessively fearful of nukes. Of course any miscalculation and you get escalation to nuclear holocaust.
Which again underlines my point: if the Russians want others to believe that they have a lot of nukes, when they don't (so you claim), then obviously having nukes provides the Russians with some benefit, which it wouldn't if nuclear war would only happen in a Barbarossa-type scenario.
It's a psychological prestige thing. I'm sure they have "a lot" of nukes, but I'm also sure the number of nukes they have which are actually ready to use and which would actually work are far lower than what they'd say on paper.
Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
If Germany launched the invasion of Poland with an aim of total conquest, and only took a small amount of land linking up with East Prussia then got stopped dead in its tracks with huge losses in a bloody stalemate and a war of attrition it was losing, while losing enormous amounts of equipment and men, yes that's not what "victory" looks like.
At this point in the war, Russia has been effectively stopped and does not appear to have any prospect of taking more than tiny amounts of territory at best. By contrast, Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive of its own, which stands to reverse the meager Russian progress for the past 6 months and take back significant amounts of land.
Also, in the real war Germany DID take enormous amounts of land from the USSR, but still lost. I don't know why you imagine Russia has the power to declare the war over and freeze the front lines whenever it wishes. Ukraine gets a say in that.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Nah, you misremembered. I do agree that Russia wouldn't use nukes if NATO bombed Moscow, though. I think Russia and Putin are extraordinarily afraid of NATO and know they couldn't win against NATO forces in any capacity.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country?
Yes, they wouldn't have a choice. Putin expends tremendous effort on keeping himself in a position of power and control internally. His subordinates would be scapegoated for the humiliation, but he would be fine.
This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
It's a fact that is not contingent on your acceptance.
Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
And talk about selective outrage. If the ICC was going to issue arrest warrants for world leaders, and do so consistently...it would have a lot of paperwork to do. It would be probably the majority of world leaders, and probably all the first-world ones, past and present.
The ICC targeting Putin just looks blatantly biased and hypocritical. Because it is.
This would make a lot more sense if you could accept that the ICC is not "acting as an agent of US foreign policy".
In fact, the ICC and US are quite hostile to one another. As said by the President of the United States in 2018:
United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.
the Bush Administration actively pursued a policy of hostility towards the Court in its international relations & vigorously pressed states to conclude "Article 98 agreements," bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the U.S. that would guarantee its citizens immunity from the court's jurisdiction, threatening to cut off aid to states that refused to agree.
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including authorization of the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
In June 2020, Donald Trump authorized sanctions against ICC
Not really. This is like when they tried W. Bush for “war crimes”, and the US response was “Lol. Lmao even.” About the only thing they have ever actually done is prosecute Serbian Genocide criminals.
The ICC can only unilaterally enforce its statutes against citizens of countries which are signatories to the Rome treaty (which does not include the US, Russia, or China). Otherwise, it can only begin criminal proceedings against individuals in non-member countries if they are referred to the court by the governments of those countries, but it has no way to enforce its judgements or rulings on them.
This is the reason the only people who have been tried or convicted before the ICC are African warlords or former dictators, or occasionally former Serbian generals: this is just a means for the current governments to get rid of political enemies.
Thereby nullifying any attempt at neutrality so Russia, probably China and others can start ignoring this 'court' meaning so long as they don't start shit in their country, pay them enough and they'll never hand you over.
Just when you think the clowns can't get any more ridiculous.
It's very funny until you realize that they're actively trying to make sure that everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust.
still funny
Gentlemen stop fighting, this is the war room.
Still one of my favorite lines.
I was with you until this. Stop with the idiotic nuclear threats already. Every time you do it, you are part of the problem. It's honestly reached (China's final warning)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning] levels. I'm going to start calling that "Antonio's final nuke threat".
If Putin got arrested somehow, Russia isn't going to nuke anyone. They'd just replace him and the new guy probably wouldn't even want him back.
That all said, I have to laugh at this:
These dumb motherfuckers have never heard of diplomatic immunity.
Oh wait, it's in their little Rome statute: Article 98 Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender
It's not even about Putin or his imaginary arrest. It's about the provocation. Imagine if the ICC, the UN, or some other global body issued an arrest warrant for Joe Biden. That's a major issue, even though they can't follow up on it. It would make the US more hostile, escalate tensions, and that could lead to nuclear conflict.
It's not about the removal of Putin, it's about antagonizing him and Russia. As well as backing them into a corner.
Personally, I don't think it will reach the stages of nuclear conflict, but we're also closer than we've been in decades, and this certainly
inchesmillimeters us closer still. The chances of nukes are slim, but they do seem to be doing everything they can to make it slightly less slim, and that's still worrying.Nuclear war is statistically improbable, total war where supply chains are utterly destroyed is significantly more likely.
I doubt it. If the supply chains are destroyed, people will riot on scales never before seen, especially here in the US. Losing food supplies would result in total collapse of everything our overlords have worked on building.
Yeah, that's why total war is bad. Nobody wants to rule over a desolate wasteland of glowing green glass.
I don't think so. I think this is trivial compared to the fact that the EU is supplying Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and supplies.
Nobody is "backed into a corner" and everyone should feel free to "antagonize" Russia without exhibiting fear of a nuclear holocaust.
If I'm not going to be afraid of antagonizing trannies, I'm sure as fuck not going to be afraid of antagonizing Russia.
It's actually your worrying that is the problem. The more you exhibit fear of nuclear weapons, the more incentive you give to Russia and China to make nuclear threats a staple of their foreign policy. The more a country relies upon and places its hopes in nuke threats to obtain its foreign policy goals, and the more they persist in this because their intelligence agencies are reading comments like yours and telling them that people fear their nukes, the more likely it is to actually use nukes when those goals consistently fail.
So ironically, it is your expressed fear of nukes that are going to get us nuked, if anything.
I agree those are bigger issues, but it all adds up, doesn't it? Also, not sure why you're focusing on the EU, when the US is the primary provider of military aid, by a massive margin.
Of course they're getting backed into a corner, most of the world is openly against Russia.
That's really reductive. Also, it depends on the level of antagonism. Globalist arrest warrants for the leader of a country does seem like a pretty big one.
And you shouldn't be. Antagonize away, my man. But you're also not issuing arrest warrants for Putin, or providing billions in military aid to Ukraine. So there's a slight difference of scale going on.
I didn't say I'm worried or afraid, I said it is worrying in the general sense. Also, if randos like me on the internet can shape Russian and Chinese foreign policy, that's something special. Again, there's an issue of scale here.
That's absurd. Talking candidly about nuclear powers on the internet isn't going to lead to nuking.
And people have been worried about the nuclear issue for decades, it's a known - if relatively slim - danger. Acting like it's not, or that nuclear weapons will never be used (again), just doesn't wash. Of course a proxy war between two heavily armed nuclear powers is going to further increase that small risk. Again, not saying it will happen, and I don't think it will, but the chances are going up. Of course they are. And that's something to discuss.
Thing is that weapons and supplies can be destroyed, while this would be an absolutely humiliating climbdown for the corrupt Empire. What, Putin made peace so we're going to withdraw our indictment, showing that it was nakedly political from the very beginning?
Trannies don't have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the greatest energy sources in the world, the largest landmass, and and infinite amount of USSR-era weapons.
It's ironic that you're anti-tranny and yet want to destroy the one country standing against it, presumably to replace it with some puppet leader who turns Russia into another Globohomo hellhole (in your fantasies).
You seem to think that if you put your head in the sand, the Bad Nukes will go away.
Odds of that are zero. Nukes aren't used because they think people are 'afraid' of them.
Everything the ICC does is obviously nakedly political to everyone. The whole point of the ICC is "we say we are the good guys, and everyone we target are the bad guys". That's why the US fought the ICC so much, because when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unpopular the ICC wanted to come after us.
See this is what I'm talking about. You think I'm afraid of Russia nuking me? "hey this guy is talking shit online! let's end the world over it!!!" LOL dude.
No idea why people always resort to this cope. Most of Russia's "land" is frozen uninhabited siberian wasteland with no value whatsoever.
Canada has a shitload of useless frozen land, too, but you don't see them trying to brag about it.
LOL no, they used them all up in Ukraine this past year. Russia has exhausted its stockpiles and is now stuck with just its new construction capacity.
Nope. Russia isn't even a leader on anti-LGBT laws. LGBTs are legal in Russia and only have issues if they protest. Throughout Africa and the Muslim world, LGBTs are still outlawed.
Also if the Russian trannies were willing to operate are regime shock troops like the Kadyrovites do, Putin would be dressing up in leather chaps and marching with them. He has no principles and will do whatever benefits his power in the moment.
It would be a huge improvement for the world, most of all Russia, for the Russians to let go of their delusions of empire, accept their relative weakness, and decide to work within the system instead of against it. Japan was able to do this and thrive. Japan remains a relatively conservative society which has been a counterbalancing force against globohomo. Russia could be an even stronger oppositional force once it bends the geopolitical knee, as it must, and it will. Poland and Hungaray and some other eastern european countries are doing more to fight globohomo culture than Russia ever has, but that could change once Russia becomes a democracy and joins the world community as a supportive participant instead of an enemy.
False, but exhibiting fear instead of relying on MAD makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely. You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. If you truly feared nukes, you'd keep your mouth shut and your fears to yourself. Since you are very loud about it, I can only conclude that you want a world where the risk of actual nuclear use is higher, not lower.
Nuke THREATS are made because evil empires think weak democracies fear them. Evil empires see democracies as being inherently weak because they are controlled by the common people and not elites (you might not believe this, but Russia and China do), and evil empires seek to exploit this weakness through manipulation of the democratic populace.
If they believe that their nuke threats are finding fertile ground and that they are succeeding in stoking the fears in that populace, they will escalate their threats. If people who side with the policy objectives of the evil empires parrot these nuke threats and fears, the evil empire will conclude that it needs to bolster its useful idiot advocates within the enemy population by escalating its nuke threats.
If any nuke threat ever is believed by any evil empire to have actually contributed to helping it achieve any goals, nuke threats will become a major part of its foreign policy.
Whenever a threat is made, the thing threatened becomes more likely, because once the "bluff" is called, the bluffer loses face and loses all credibility, unless he decides it shouldn't be a bluff after all, and pulls the trigger in an effort to save face and credibility.
So yes, exhibiting fear of nukes -> nuke threats -> nuclear brinkmanship as foreign policy -> much higher risk of actual nuclear use.
Responding to nuke threats with punishment, and showing no fear but rather invoking MAD, is the best way to minimize the risk of actual nuclear use.
The biggest problem in the world right now re: nukes is that nobody thinks limp dick Joe Biden would actually authorize nuclear retaliation. This perception on weakness invites nuclear first use. The United States didn't used to be like this. We used to be a strong nation that was feared. Electing weaklings like Biden makes the world a far more dangerous place. It isn't a coincidence that Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, mere months after Biden cucked out in Afghanistan. Putin made a calculation based on his perception of Biden's weakness.
The US fought the ICC because it wants impunity for its many wars of aggression. It has nothing to fear from these 'international institutions', who are nothing more than puppets, but it's still so paranoid that it wants to prevent th smallest chance.
You said they'd do it if they read comments expressing concerns about nuclear war. And you were obviously saying that you want Russia to be messed with by your government.
Being very large has many advantages, as well as disadvantages. Hell, if Russia was a small country with similar 'stats', I don't think it would have been nearly as important historically.
Apparently, Ukraine has used 15 year worth of US production, and it will take years to replenish. Not sure if that is real or just propaganda by the military-industrial complex begging for more freebees. I'm shocked at the non-existent industrial production in both the US and Russia.
Russia is the only European country where LGBTP is not accepted. Even countries like Poland have about 50% support for homosexual marriage. Now, I don't mind, but it's a sign of further societal decay. Ukraine is also pretty based, but not quite so based as Russia.
It's very funny that you pretend Biden has principles, and Putin doesn't. Even though Putin may actually be a Christian, something no American leader is. I read that Putin was marginalized in the KGB for being a Christian. It was touching.
Japan is like the Baltic states in that it goes along with everything. Internally, things are also going in the wrong direction, with more acceptance of homosexuality. Everywhere the US imposes its system, societal collapse follows. Even in Egypt when they forced out Mubarak, and the Islamic fundamentalists came to power. Even there, the government was more tolerant of homosexuality than before, or after.
Like I said, I don't mind, but I do mind that it's US imperialism forcing it down everyone's throats.
They are only one US-sponsored color revolution/coup away from complete collapse though. I like Poland and I like Hungary, but I don't think they can survive as traditional societies. Not in the EU, not under the yoke of the Americans.
That makes no sense. If you don't want nuclear war, you make a noise about it so the criminals in charge of your country won't drag you into one.
Putin recently said that Russia calling others 'unfriendly peoples' should actually be 'unfriendly elites'. He knows better than to think that "common people" control anything in the West, which is a high absurdity. Ursula von der Leyen was threatening Italian voters if they voted the 'wrong' way. Hungary is punished by the EU for outlawing the grooming of kids in schools. Basically, nowhere in Europe is there such a thing as 'democracy'. It's a label that they put on their corrupt oligarchies to make it sound better, and to coerce compliance same way they once cited divine right as legitimation for their statelets.
In China, there is actual elite control. A highly competent elite, which is what distinguishes it from the clownshow in the West.
It's not Putin's threats that worry me. I'd be equally worried if he had said nothing at all about nukes. Capabilities are what matter, not intentions. It's a foundational tenet of realism.
I'll never side with the policy objectives of the evil empires, the US and the EU.
Realism suggests otherwise. That 'credibility' does not matter much at all, because other parties are smart enough to distinguish between vital national interests and hobby-horses. Do you remember the phony nuclear threats the USSR made in the Suez crisis? No one was stupid enough to believe them. But do you think that would in any way undermine a nuclear threat made regarding actual vital interests? Of course not!
???
If there's a nuclear first use, it will be because of Biden's warmongering.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it fears you, as the world's foremost bully and thug, and rightly so.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't seem unlikely that he thought the puppet government in Ukraine could be dislodged with ease, just like the puppet government in Afghanistan was. Why on earth would anyone fight for puppets of imperialist foreigners? Same reason no German should ever fight for his government.
Just because you persuaded yourself that nuclear weapons will never be used, doesn't make it a reality. China, Russia and the US would not have spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons if using them would be an impossibility. In fact, if a minimal force were enough for deterrence, you'd want your enemies to spend as much as possible on nuclear weapons, while keeping a minimal force yourself. This is not what happens.
They will never be used for the reasons you claim they could. They could be used for other reasons.
China actually only maintained a very small nuke force until very recently, when they began to massively expand it. Pentagon report 11/22 states China currently has about 400 nuclear warheads, and that number could grow to 1,500 by 2035.
The US and USSR (not Russia) spent vast sums on nukes as a Cold War dick measuring competition and for MAD purposes. Obviously no nukes were ever used in over 70 years despite several wars and high tensions.
LOL are you serious? That is exactly the policy of China for many decades, until a few years ago. (as well as every other nation besides the US/USSR) China is shifting into a more aggressive posture and knows it cannot make threats while having few warheads. Considering how rich China is now, the expense of the expansion is pretty small for them.
Also, having more warheads gives you a feeling of greater security from MAD, since obviously if you have 20,000 warheads, your ability to ensure the total destruction of your enemy is far more guaranteed than if you have only 20 and the enemy might be tempted to attempt to obtain a first strike capability. Having thousands of warheads means that a first strike is so impossible to pull off that you wouldn't even attempt to plan for it.
Russia is not the USSR. Russia should have greatly reduced its nuke arsenal. It has refused to do so only out of a stubborn refusal to accept how far it has fallen from the USSR times, and clings to its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "prestige" expense that supposedly proves it is a "great power". Russia is going to have to let go of a lot of delusions in the next year or two.
Also, fun note on the expense front. The expensive part of nuclear weapons isnt the warheads themselves. It is the maintenance on them to make sure they still retain the ability to actually go critical and create the nuclear boom. It is the single most expensive part of the US Nuclear Program. Now consider that Russia claims to have double our warheads...but half of our budget toward their nuclear program. I will let you work out what that riddle means for yourself.
It means that American military spending is mostly pork.
yeah, Russia clearly doesn't maintain a lot of their force, yet pretends that it is still ready to fire so they can point to big numbers on paper. We have seen with their invasion of Ukraine that Russia tends to focus on trying to look mighty on paper while neglecting real-world capability.
Double? You sure?
Doesn't sound impossible or even that illogical. Russian salaries are lower, the technology is way different.
I stand corrected. I was going off of my older knowledge and didnt realize they had downsized the amount of warheads they had significantly to be more on par with the US (RU: 5,977, US: 5, 428). Either way, there is no reason to be so much less on the nuclear upkeep.
Ah yes, because if there is one thing I want to skimp on, its the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl was a fluke after all, its not like Russia has a history of nuclear incidents and destroying their own nuclear submarines through incompetence.
Either way, I can believe a lower maintenance cost due to the reasons you mentioned. But the wild difference? No, that cant be explained by simple differences in salary. My theory that they are skimping on warhead maintenance is also not without merit, considering the carrier that is falling apart at anchor (it cant move well due to bad engines), the cargo plane just spotted flying with significant amounts of fouling, their various vehicles in Ukraine with shoddy maintenance work showing, etc. And when you consider their newest ICBM suffered a catastrophic failure on not one, but two separate test launches? Something tells me some of those nukes are long past their half-life and will probably be several megatons short on their blasting power if detonated.
I'm confused by why you think that not paying Russians salaries common in America (which has a higher cost of living) is "skimping". And I'm pretty sure many more people are employed than just engineers.
10 points if you manage to name the (supposed) country in which Chernobyl is located.
Regardless, Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon, and it was made a disaster because of the communist system, not because RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
My theory that <RUSSIA BAD> is also not without merit.
Yeah, I don't know, I haven't inspected them, but you haven't given any reason to believe it.
If the warheads are in bad condition, which may be the cast, stealing of funds allocated will be the more likely reason than not enough allocated.
I think this is the first time that you have acknowledged that they could be used. Normally, you just cite MAD as proof that they never will be, even though MAD is... mad.
Correct (although obviously the Pentagon is not a reliable source), but why would they do that if nuke use is impossible?
They were long past the point of MAD. And let's not forget that nukes were never used because there were responsible statesmen like Kennedy and Khrushchev who at least tried to avoid it, rather than soiling the fire with all the gasoline they had.
The Soviet troops in Cuba had standing orders to use nuclear weapons if Cuba were invaded. It is completely mad, but they did it anyway. You yourself have also cited that incident with the submarine.
It's like a guy who tosses a coin ten times, and when it comes up heads every time, concludes that it is impossible that it lands tails.
But it's still an expense. Why would you do it if you know for sure that they will definitely never be used? That makes no sense. I'm sure those hundreds of billions could have been spent better elsewhere, even by the military-industrial complex, if nukes are literally useless.
A splendid first strike would be impossible, but you could still carry out a first strike as a damage limitations strategy. I remember that at the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on US and USSR side, many targets were still nuclear.
Russia and the US have greatly reduced their nuclear arsenal, but they've also made great investments into their nuclear arsenal. Why? Clearly not because they expect that it's useless and that they're throwing away their money.
I'm absolutely sure that when Russia prevails in Ukraine, and that your fantasies of Putin being lynched and Moscow being bombed turn out to be exactly that, you will blame Biden and the "libs" for being too weak, or whatever. No introspection that you can't bully a great power.
BTW, it's not me downvoting you. Contrary to your belief that you annoy me, I like the fact that at least someone takes the other side in these threads, and does so well.
I can only imagine a nuclear first strike happening as follows:
Israel would use nukes if it believed it was going to lose militarily against an opponent whose military/political objectives would result in the end of Israel as a jewish state.
Pakistan would use nukes if India invaded with an intention of total conquest, and the Pakistani defended collapsed.
Russia would use nukes only in a "Barbarossa" type situation where it was being invaded by a massive force intent on total conquest, in which its defenses were in systemic collapse, and in which the Russians themselves feared genocide.
North Korea would use nukes in circumstances uncertain because it's such a black box shitshow over there that nobody really knows. Unlike they'd use them if they got bombed. If the regime elites felt like their personal situation was hopeless, they might flip the chess board, especially if China offered them sanctuary and secretly told them to launch. China doesn't care if the NORK population gets glassed, and the NORK regime elites don't either. IMO NORK is the only true nuclear threat for this reason.
Short of the above, Russia will NOT use nukes because using them would do Russia more harm than good. Keyboard warriors like to pretend that nukes are a superweapon that end conventional wars with the push of a button, but that simply isn't true. Military forces are generally dispersed and dug in enough to not be easy targets for nukes. The reason nukes would have been effective against the USSR was due to its "Fulda Gap armored spearhead" doctrine of using large numbers of massed tanks concentrated in such a way that a tactical nuke could disrupt it.
So in exchange for a small and temporary battlefield benefit, Russia becomes a total international pariah. Even China would be forced to totally embargo Russia, or else itself be subject to total trade embargoes. With even China and India cutting them off, Russia would totally collapse economically, as it simply doesn't have an internally self sustaining economy. It relies very heavily on trade to meet its basic needs.
Russia is governed by elites who care primarily about their own quality of life. They'd be fine with millions of Russians dead, but they won't accept their own quality of life being totally crushed, which is exactly what would happen if Russia popped off even a single tactical nuke. Which is why it won't.
Would Joe Biden fire a nuke back? No, he won't. He should, but he's a bitch. This eliminates the MAD aspect, but thankfully Russia's extreme economic dependence on foreign trade cover that base well enough.
To make threats because they believe they can scare stupid American voters into opposing a US intervention to help Taiwan.
As far as I know, you're wrong. The Soviet troops in Cuba never had authorization of any kind to use the nukes, and were forbidden from doing so on their own initiative.
Castro was irrational but he never controlled the nukes. Khrushchev blinked because the shooting down of the U-2 by a Soviet missile violated direct orders from Moscow, and Cuban anti-aircraft fire against other US reconnaissance aircraft also violated direct orders from Khrushchev to Castro. AS A RESULT, Khrushchev know knew that he had lost control of the situation and that Soviet troops in Cuba MIGHT disobey orders again and fire nukes regardless of their orders. Khrushchev also knew that he could not rely on the 162 tactical nukes to deter an invasion, because the Americans didn't know about them. So America would invade, the local Soviet commanders would disobey orders and open fire with nukes, and then the US would launch a strategic nuclear response on the USSR directly. WW3. (back when America didn't fuck around and actually would have done it)
Therefore, when he heard Robert Kennedy had relayed to Dobrynin: "You have drawn first blood ... . [T]he president had decided against advice ... not to respond militarily to that attack, but he [Dobrynin] should know that if another plane was shot at, ... we would take out all the SAMs and antiaircraft ... . And that would almost surely be followed by an invasion."
This caused him to IMMEDIATELY back down, because based on all the information at his disposal, given his loss of control of Soviet forces in Cuba and their disobedience of his orders, this was the only way to prevent nuclear war.
Had the Soviets in Cuba actually reliably followed orders, he would not have needed to back down. It was poor discipline and a lack of trust in his own troops that forced that result.
Khrushchev only needed to be rational. Putin is also rational. While Castro was irrational, this only means that the lesson learned is to stop at nothing to prevent any irrational actor from getting nukes.
Not at all, but it is equally stupid to think nukes fly based on a coin flip.
Because military budgets are decided on for primarily political objectives. Xi Jinping wants China to have a "world class" nuclear arsenal like the US/USSR built. Maybe it's purely about prestige, maybe it's about being able to make more "weighty" threats in order to intimidate civilian populations in democracies.
China loves to waste money on prestige megaprojects. Also, GJ straw manning me with your absurd exaggerated twisting of my words.
No, a "first strike" doesn't accomplish any "damage limitations" when your enemy has enough nukes to glass you 10x over, and your "first strike" could only take out a small portion of the nukes anyway.
ICBMs take 30-60 minutes flight time, during which they are easily and immediately spotted, and the US/USSR have systems in place to counter-launch before the "first strike" arrives. On top of that you have subs packing enough heat to glass you by themselves with no hope of preventing it.
The only time first striking becomes possible is if you have a VERY GOOD ABM interception system and LOTS of interceptors, but since the ABM system is more expensive than the nukes themselves, it's easily hard countered by simply building more nukes to saturate it. The real benefits of an ABM system is that it totally eliminates a "limited" nuclear exchange. ABMs mean it's all-or-nothing.
Russia want to be able to say they have "new nukes" to pretend that the "new nukes" can't be countered by ABM systems, which they can, but politics demands they be able to say it anyway. Also, newer systems are generally designed to save on maintenance costs, since Russia has to waste a lot of money maintaining its old nukes. It probably doesn't adequately maintain most of them, but for political purposes wants to pretend they are still viable and ready to fire even though they aren't.
I didn't know you wrote fiction.
You always accuse me of nonsense I didn't say. I don't think Putin would lose power in Russia if he ended the war tomorrow. He's too entrenched. And Moscow being bombed? That sounds like Russian propaganda. Those russians always like to pretend that they're victims when they're the bullies.
TIL Ukraine is a "great power".
I don't downvote you either.
Definitely a case where they woudl be used. But India was the first to develop nuclear weapons, despite its own conventional superiority.
Whether or not the Russians will face 'genocide' will make no difference. The regime there, as regimes everywhere, cares only about its own survival. If it does not survive, what does it matter if Russians do or don't face genocide - the incentives for the regime is the same.
Obviously, the elites don't care if their populations get glassed, except insofar as this prevents their exploitation of their population. The US doesn't want half its population to die, because that would rob it of half its tax base and cannon fodder, obviously not because they 'care about people' or whatever crap they make you believe.
That's a tactical nuclear weapon. Also possible is a nuclear strike on say Lwow. Or even the use of small-yield nuclear devices on command and control, power, etc. There's also a great psychological blow of "we're being nuked". As you rightly pointed out, the ordinary bombing of Japan did more damage than did the nukes, but the nukes had greater effect.
It's interesting that you pre-emptively addressed it, because I was just about to bring it up. Moreover, to be able to credibly pretend that you will defend NATO, you would have to use nuclear weapons in the Warsaw Pact, not tell Germany that you will nuke Soviet forces once they arrive in Germany.
What I like about you is that you make some observations about 'Russian elites' which are true of elites everywhere, and then pretend that it's solely applicable to Russian elites. It's like the Imp who says "I DON'T TRUST FEMALE POLITICIANS!" Suggesting that he does trust male politicains.
He'd be completely insane to exchange American cities for some shithole in Ukraine. And since American elites do not want to lose half their tax base and cannon fodder, obviously he's not going to do that. I'm sure they have nuclear-proof bunkers for themselves while they let the rest of us die, but being able to waste 50% less money would be a blow.
American voters have no influence though, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That is why there is a Uniparty consensus. You didn't seriously think that the military-industrial complex would allow voters power over something as important as foreign policy?
Yeah, it's pretty shocking, but I read that in Martin Sherwin's Gambling with Armageddon:
The first set of orders reflected the unadulterated fear shared by all. Pliyev was to put his forces "on alert", but was forbidden to use any of the nuclear weapons under his command (reversing the authority that Khrushchev had given him orally in July, when they discussed how he would defend his forces against an American invasion).
On reconsideration, however, such an order seemed pusillanimous. Why had tactical nuclear weapons been deployed with the troops if not not to defeat an "imperialist" invasion? The Cuban and Soviet troops would be outnumbered and outgunned. Those weapons - the nuclear-armed Lunas and FKR cruise missiles - were their only chance; they had to be used. So new orders were written that rescinded the restrictions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and, in so doing, accepted the possibility of precipitating a nuclear war.
Can they even fire nukes without central authorization?
It's funny that you call other people 'suicidal' for warning about the risks of nuclear war, while being an absolute jingoist about nuclear annihilation over... Cuba.
He is? Because the West keeps flip-flopping on it depending on what they want to say at any given moment. And rationality here, by the way, means that you would engage in some nuclear brinkmanship. Putin's excessive caution has done a lot of harm to his country. (I guess you could describe excessive caution as 'rational'.)
The analogy is that you think that just because you got lucky, it will continue like that forever.
Yes, and it's a political objective is a nuclear arsenal is of any actual use, not if it's completely useless. You lose as much prestige with a large nuclear arsenal as you win. China does not even need a large nuclear arsenal, because it has the industrial might and population to dominate conventionally.
I distinctly recall you saying many times that "no, no, nuclear weapons will NEVER be used because MAD". Like I said, this is the first time you've said that they might be used under some circumstances.
Yes, that's my point. If you can limit the damage done to say 50% of your country rather than 100%, then that would be damage limitaton.
Not sure where, but I've read an IR guy make a similar argument. That without an ABM, a country like NK could fire 1 nuclear missile at a US base and dare the US to respond and get glassed. With ABM, it would have to fire 50 for 1 to get through, and that's obviously of a different order than 1.
Which again underlines my point: if the Russians want others to believe that they have a lot of nukes, when they don't (so you claim), then obviously having nukes provides the Russians with some benefit, which it wouldn't if nuclear war would only happen in a Barbarossa-type scenario.
Russia has already won. It gained territory, while Ukraine is in ruins (or so it claims), and Russia is not. That's called victory. If Germany had destroyed most of the USSR, and then annexed the Baltic republics, Galicia and Bessarabia - would that be a German loss? No.
Am I happy with the continued existence of a Ukraine? No. But there's no denying that things are a victory as it is.
I remember you saying on Reddit: Russia would not retaliate if Moscow got bombed, instead, Putin would get lynched like Mussolini. Something like that. Really crazy fantasies.
Depends on how he ended it. If he loses Crimea and/or the Donbas provinces, his regime and possibly his life would be in danger. You think those army and FSB guys are going to tolerate someone who starts a war and then loses territory to a puppet shithole non-country? No. This is why I am certain of a Russian victory, because it is necessary for the continuation of the regime. You keep repeating 'dictator' so often that you actually start to believe it.
Unprecedented powers in leeching. Unlike Russia, which is an actual great power, which won't be pushed around by empires run by 'Puppy Play' fetishists who steal women's luggage.
India has to worry about China, and China has nukes, so India needed nukes as well to not get bullied by China.
Japan proves you don't need nukes to be a great power, however.
Nah, Hitler did not use chemical weapons even though his regime was clearly going to fall. Japan didn't, either. Neither of them would have used nukes if they had them for the exact same reason.
Germany & Japan also prove that even losing a war by conquest or unconditional surrender is only a temporary setback that can be overcome in a few years provided the conquerors don't plan on occupying and subjugating you long term. The Japanese government surrendered despite loads of propaganda to fight to the death, and when officers tried a coup to reverse the surrender decision, it went nowhere and immediately failed.
If you're a Russian military officer and NATO armies are invading Russia, and you don't push the button, the worst that happens is that Russia becomes a democracy. If anything your family might get a better life. You push that button? Your family dies. It's an easy choice. Very, very few Russians are willing to die for the "regime" as opposed to saving themselves and their families.
Wrong. Americans genuinely care about one another, if a little less about political enemies. 9/11 proved that beyond all doubt. It doesn't matter that 9/11 killed a bunch of jews and libtards, Red America rose up willing to fight to avenge it.
Your mentality is correct as to China, Russia, North Korea, Myanmar, and some other shitholes, but it isn't true at all in modern democracies.
Doctrine for nukes in war is that you hit all the enemy bases, airfields, and logistics hubs. Russia has a poor intelligence picture of Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine can still operate fighters proves that. There is absolutely no excuse for Russia to have not taken out the Ukrainian air force, but Ukraine was able to disperse its aircraft in the early days of the war and operate them out of temporary, improvised bases. You can't nuke a target if you can't find it.
So tactical nukes wouldn't be a magic bullet for Russia. Ordering a full mobilization would be far less costly for Russia while also being more militarily effective.
Because it isn't true. Democracy greatly limits elite power. The leftist elites were able to successfully stop Bernie Sanders, twice, by manipulating blacks, but they couldn't stop Trump. Elites are just one faction in American society, they don't run the place like they do in Russia. In Russia there is no convincing necessary, whatever the elites agree on is going to be what happens, 0 fucks given about what the public at large thinks.
By contrast, Biden chose to ignore the Chinese spy balloon, then then the public at large didn't like that, he immediately reversed course and overcompensated by shooting down children's party balloons with F-22s.
Elites are smart enough to know that your logic leads to death regardless. If Russia nukes and we don't nuke back, then Russia will just nuke again, and again, and again, and again, until Russia finally nukes something we must nuke back for, and then we end up in exactly the same place we started, except at a much greater disadvantage because we let Russia nuke our side many times before we found our spine.
This was the lesson Hitler taught for all time when he kept eating one country after another and said "I promise this is the last one" and the cowards just let him do it the first few times. Never again. Hence why the strong reaction to stop Putin in Ukraine.
The American voter is the most powerful force in America. The American voter ultimately decides policy in this country, both through elections in a big way, and through polling in a day-to-day way. Biden constantly changes policy when the polls don't go his way. Afghanistan was one time he didn't, but he paid dearly for that and it made him scared to do it again.
There is no such thing as the "military-industrial complex" that's just a propaganda meme from the Left. All the defense contractors don't meet in a shadowy room and scheme, they mostly hate each other because they're competitors.
And there is no "uniparty consensus", Biden took office and abandoned Afghanistan even though it was something the Republicans were strongly against. Had Trump won, he would have been pressured into stopping his limp dick nonsense and putting more troops back in to prevent a collapse.
It has been debated but it's wrong. here is the source:
During the fifth and final conference in Havana, General Anatoly Gribkov, who was a colonel at the time of the crisis and heavily involved in the planning of the missile operation known now as operation "Anadyr", surprised many participants by claiming that General Pliyev had Moscow's permission to launch a nuclear strike against the United States in the event the U.S. invaded Cuba (here it is not understood whether airstrikes constituted an invasion, or if actual ground forces had to be a part of the invasionary forces).135
There is much debate currently as to the validity of Gribkov's statement. Mark Kramer sees Gribkov's account as nothing more than a way for an overzealous conference participant to grab some publicity. Other scholars like James Blight and Robert McNamara were eager to take Gribkov's testimony at face value. Gribkov later that same year, in an interview for Krasnaya Zvesda (Red Star) in November 1992, retracted his earlier tale.136 [Kramer, Tactical, 43.]
In the beginning of 1994, Gribkov published a book with U.S. general William Y. Smith, which seems to put the question of ICBM control to rest. In the book, which appeared in April 1994, Gribkov appears to back-away from his startling Havana statements by writing, "Hours before receiving the translation of Kennedy's address, however, Khrushchev and his colleagues had also agreed on measures to reduce the risk that conflict over Cuba might lead to general war. One such action was a coded telegram sent at 11:30 P.M. Moscow time that reached us in Havana some thirty minutes before the U.S. President began his broadcast. Addressed to Trostnik - Comrade Pavlov (code for Soviet headquarters on Cuba), and signed by Defense Minister Rodian Y. Malinovsky as Director, the message contained both a call to arms and a prohibition on the use of atomic arms. Instructing Pliyev to prepare to fight, it also hedged his authority to use any part of his nuclear arsenal in the event of fighting."137 [Gribkov and Smith, Operation, 62.]
Such orders were written but were not approved or signed or communicated to the Soviets in Cuba. They were just drafts.
Yes. The tactical nukes did not have any special security safeguards or "locks". The Soviets were also concerned that the Cubans could potentially seize the weapons and fire them themselves without Soviet approval.
I'm not a "jingoist", I'm merely stating the facts as they were believed at the time, and they were rightfully believed.
Putin is obviously rational and calculating. I couldn't care less what some libtard writes in the NYT or Wapo. Putin's caution is a reflection of the fact that he doesn't hold absolute power in Russia and therefore has to proceed in a way that is compromising and limited in order to ensure he gets cooperation within his regime. Ask for too much sacrifice, and people start to balk.
If I only need 100 ICBMs to glass you, and I have 1,000, and you take 50% of them out somehow, you've accomplished nothing. You just reduced the layers of glass from 10 to 5.
Limited nuclear exchanges are extremely dangerous because they are far more likely. When I told you what MAD stops, MAD stops a general nuclear exchange. It also reduces the odds of a 1-shot attack, but such an attack is far more likely if the attacker sees the defender as weak-willed and unwilling to respond, or excessively fearful of nukes. Of course any miscalculation and you get escalation to nuclear holocaust.
It's a psychological prestige thing. I'm sure they have "a lot" of nukes, but I'm also sure the number of nukes they have which are actually ready to use and which would actually work are far lower than what they'd say on paper.
[continued]
part 2:
If Germany launched the invasion of Poland with an aim of total conquest, and only took a small amount of land linking up with East Prussia then got stopped dead in its tracks with huge losses in a bloody stalemate and a war of attrition it was losing, while losing enormous amounts of equipment and men, yes that's not what "victory" looks like.
At this point in the war, Russia has been effectively stopped and does not appear to have any prospect of taking more than tiny amounts of territory at best. By contrast, Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive of its own, which stands to reverse the meager Russian progress for the past 6 months and take back significant amounts of land.
Also, in the real war Germany DID take enormous amounts of land from the USSR, but still lost. I don't know why you imagine Russia has the power to declare the war over and freeze the front lines whenever it wishes. Ukraine gets a say in that.
Nah, you misremembered. I do agree that Russia wouldn't use nukes if NATO bombed Moscow, though. I think Russia and Putin are extraordinarily afraid of NATO and know they couldn't win against NATO forces in any capacity.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
Yes, they wouldn't have a choice. Putin expends tremendous effort on keeping himself in a position of power and control internally. His subordinates would be scapegoated for the humiliation, but he would be fine.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
It's a fact that is not contingent on your acceptance.
I like how you think 1 stupid political appointment by an old hair sniffer to a junior position in an agency represents the whole world outside of Russia. lol.
HEY YOU!
Yes, you reading this.
Minimize the parent comment and move on. It's just a giant spergfest from here.
Doing the Lord's work. Thank you.
No sperging, just very interesting discussion.
Even I have my limits on discussion.
What's wrong with this discussion though?
It's too long and quote-reply-ee. Like, obsessively too long.
They can find him at the Kremlin in Moscow. Get to arresting him. Please share video of the encounter.
Lol, ok.
ICC acting as an agent of US foreign policy even though the US is still not a signatory of the ICC treaty.
And talk about selective outrage. If the ICC was going to issue arrest warrants for world leaders, and do so consistently...it would have a lot of paperwork to do. It would be probably the majority of world leaders, and probably all the first-world ones, past and present.
The ICC targeting Putin just looks blatantly biased and hypocritical. Because it is.
This would make a lot more sense if you could accept that the ICC is not "acting as an agent of US foreign policy".
In fact, the ICC and US are quite hostile to one another. As said by the President of the United States in 2018:
the Bush Administration actively pursued a policy of hostility towards the Court in its international relations & vigorously pressed states to conclude "Article 98 agreements," bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the U.S. that would guarantee its citizens immunity from the court's jurisdiction, threatening to cut off aid to states that refused to agree.
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including authorization of the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
In June 2020, Donald Trump authorized sanctions against ICC
That's all valid but I don't think it reflects the current administration/deep state. Notice that's all Bush and Trump stuff.
yes Democrats suck up to the EU and part of that is sucking up to the ICC, which is a fundamentally EU-dominated institution.
I like how you always blame us for the Democrats' misrule. Trust me, the EU is the puppet of the Americans, not vice versa.
The ICC is an entirely EU thing. Don't blame us for that shit.
Bill Clinton signed it, and the US only backed out because it feared prosecution of its own officials.
Lemme guess, they DONT have one for Xi and the Chinese government for their concentration camps.
Does that court have any serious power?
Not really. This is like when they tried W. Bush for “war crimes”, and the US response was “Lol. Lmao even.” About the only thing they have ever actually done is prosecute Serbian Genocide criminals.
Gotcha
[Sad accordion noises]
The ICC can only unilaterally enforce its statutes against citizens of countries which are signatories to the Rome treaty (which does not include the US, Russia, or China). Otherwise, it can only begin criminal proceedings against individuals in non-member countries if they are referred to the court by the governments of those countries, but it has no way to enforce its judgements or rulings on them.
This is the reason the only people who have been tried or convicted before the ICC are African warlords or former dictators, or occasionally former Serbian generals: this is just a means for the current governments to get rid of political enemies.
Thanks for the breakdown
Thereby nullifying any attempt at neutrality so Russia, probably China and others can start ignoring this 'court' meaning so long as they don't start shit in their country, pay them enough and they'll never hand you over.
Congrats, you played yourself
They would rather the children be left in a war zone...?
It would be interesting if anyone actually put the bag on Vlad and he was banged up the same time as Trump.
How utterly bizarre.
"Our children." they say.
Maybe you fucks shouldn't have been shelling them for the last 6 years. Assholes.
i want to see them try
Do JK Rowling and the murderer worshipping TERF trash.
Say, weren't you claiming that the UK government is "illegitimate" (true) under the Rome Statute (false)?