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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.