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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?