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.
India has to worry about China, and China has nukes, so India needed nukes as well to not get bullied by China.
I may have been stoopid, but I assumed it was about Pakistan. China makes a good deal more sense. And then Pakistan had to develop nukes in order to not be at a disadvantage vs. India.
Japan proves you don't need nukes to be a great power, however.
Japan is no great power. It's an economic power, but to be a great power, you have to at least be able to project power regionally. The only great powers are the ones that are somewhat at par with the US: China, Russia and the Taliban.
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.
Did Japan even have chemical weapons? This makes no sense. Hitler was preparing to drag down the entire Reich with him. I don't know why he did not use chemical weapons, but I know that it's not for any moral reason or because he feared dying (or destruction).
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.
Germany and Japan are occupied countries at the moment. Hell, Germany can't even protest its pipelines being blown up by its master. It has no sovereignty, but then again, none of us in the EU do.
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.
The early 1990s. Which is pretty bad.
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.
By that logic, nuclear weapons will never be used. Of course, that is nonsense. So if Russia nukes some US bases in Europe, you won't press the button because you don't want to be glassed. Don't be absurd. Like I said, Putin (or whoever) will use nukes if his regime is threatened, because for any regime, not being in power is the worst thing that can happen.
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.
Biden doesn't care about you. He doesn't care if you live or die. And my government (a "modern democracy") sure as hell doesn't care about me. C'mon man, how are you this naive?
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 especially true in "modern democracies". In divine right monarchy, you at least have a small chance that a non-sociopath will come to the throne. In "democracies", it's a literal impossibility. They don't care about their people, except insofar as it hurts them. What "democracies" do well is that sending your people to die will hurt you politically, so they are less likely to do it than a Mao. But that is the only reason they don't do it, not because Biden is some sort of great moral light.
Ordering a full mobilization would be far less costly for Russia while also being more militarily effective.
Probably.
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.
They stopped Trump in his tracks, he got nothing done, and now they're jailing him for the temerity to win an election. "Democracy" is a fiction. You are possessed by your two-party mindset, persuaded yourself that all your ills of your country come from Democrats, but I can see that much more clearly in multi-party European elections. It doesn't matter who wins. You get screwed either way, and the elites always win.
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.
And yet Putin has higher approval than any European or American leader.
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.
Your problem is that the only history you know is Hitler.
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.
Princeton showed otherwise. The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything.
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.
But they all agree they want more war, and more military spending. And they bribe politicians to get what they want.
It has been debated but it's wrong. here is the source:
Where did you find this? I can't find the book 'Tactical'.
I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing though. You're talking about a strategic attack (because "on the United States"). My source seemed to suggest a tactical strike.
I'm not a "jingoist", I'm merely stating the facts as they were believed at the time, and they were rightfully believed.
You said it was a good thing to risk nuclear war over something so stupid. One of the most interesting things to me was that Kennedy ordered US bases in Turkey and Italy to not strike if the USSR decided to bomb those nuclear facilities in retaliation.
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.
Elsewhere, you claim that he has complete control and that he can even sign away parts of the territory of the state without being assassinated by the army or the FSB.
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.
I think it's almost certan that you will get miscalculation in situations like that. If you don't strike back, the other side will escalate. If you strike back too hard, he feels he has to retaliate harder. It's pretty mad.
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.
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.
It's also at the General level, which has always been an American weakness. Its why our army relies so much on NCO's and delegation of command, while Generals have historically made plans little more complicated than "Advance in this direction and kill anything that looks at you funny." Which is why US Generals tend to stand out when they do something other than that (see: Grant, Bradley, Patton, Schwarzkopf, Mattis, etc).
As for the actual soldiers and NCO's, I can say this: I live near a military base. I see soldiers around town all the time. And you want to know what they are? They are still the same corn-fed, beef-eating, "Sounds like something a soy-cuck would say", gun-nut loving Americans they have always been.
Let the Generals become fools. They havent really mattered to our military ability.
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.
This is very interesting. You probably don't remember, but we once discussed this when I told you that the war aims needed to be as limited as possible, if only so that you would come out as a victor regardless of how they turned out. This is also why the US is exaggerating the war aims: if Russia doesn't conquer every last inch, they DID IT, we saved the farms west of Lwow.
Seen objectively, the Winter War was a victory for the USSR.
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.
Only times your puppet has gained anything, is when the Russians were woefully undermanned. You're just cheering the prospect of your fellow Orthodox being cut down by artillery. Sad. I guess geopolitical interests run thicker than religion.
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 don't see Russia losing any serious amounts of territory, for reasons I specified earlier. I do support retreating to save manpower when that is necessary though. If you lose your manpower, you will lose the territory, but if you make your opponent bleed, you can use the manpower you saved to take back the terrritory and then some.
Imagine if the USSR hadn't allowed Germany to encircle millions of Red Army soldiers in the first few months.
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.
I specifically remember a reference to Mussolini. If thye're that afraid, then nukes are far more likely than otherwise.
Hard disagree. You're projecting your own feelings of unhappiness of that outcome.
You think Russian elites will put up with Putin dismembering and destroying the country, but not with general mobilization? Then you are grievously wrong about who the elites are. It's not the wealthy oligrachs. It's the security elite. They don't mess around. Of course, you want to pretend this ain't the case so you can advocate for MASSIVE ESCALATION and tell yourself that you're going to win, and blame the "libs" when you don't.
Are you from Georgia or Ukraine? Your anti-Russian hysteria doesn't make sense otherwise.
Wishful thinking on your part, and not true at all.
You know your wishful thinking.
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.
Not the whole world. Just the Empire. Why does this sort of thing not happen in Russia, China or Hungary?
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]
I may have been stoopid, but I assumed it was about Pakistan. China makes a good deal more sense. And then Pakistan had to develop nukes in order to not be at a disadvantage vs. India.
Japan is no great power. It's an economic power, but to be a great power, you have to at least be able to project power regionally. The only great powers are the ones that are somewhat at par with the US: China, Russia and the Taliban.
Did Japan even have chemical weapons? This makes no sense. Hitler was preparing to drag down the entire Reich with him. I don't know why he did not use chemical weapons, but I know that it's not for any moral reason or because he feared dying (or destruction).
Germany and Japan are occupied countries at the moment. Hell, Germany can't even protest its pipelines being blown up by its master. It has no sovereignty, but then again, none of us in the EU do.
The early 1990s. Which is pretty bad.
By that logic, nuclear weapons will never be used. Of course, that is nonsense. So if Russia nukes some US bases in Europe, you won't press the button because you don't want to be glassed. Don't be absurd. Like I said, Putin (or whoever) will use nukes if his regime is threatened, because for any regime, not being in power is the worst thing that can happen.
Biden doesn't care about you. He doesn't care if you live or die. And my government (a "modern democracy") sure as hell doesn't care about me. C'mon man, how are you this naive?
It's especially true in "modern democracies". In divine right monarchy, you at least have a small chance that a non-sociopath will come to the throne. In "democracies", it's a literal impossibility. They don't care about their people, except insofar as it hurts them. What "democracies" do well is that sending your people to die will hurt you politically, so they are less likely to do it than a Mao. But that is the only reason they don't do it, not because Biden is some sort of great moral light.
Probably.
They stopped Trump in his tracks, he got nothing done, and now they're jailing him for the temerity to win an election. "Democracy" is a fiction. You are possessed by your two-party mindset, persuaded yourself that all your ills of your country come from Democrats, but I can see that much more clearly in multi-party European elections. It doesn't matter who wins. You get screwed either way, and the elites always win.
And yet Putin has higher approval than any European or American leader.
Your problem is that the only history you know is Hitler.
Princeton showed otherwise. The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything.
But they all agree they want more war, and more military spending. And they bribe politicians to get what they want.
Where did you find this? I can't find the book 'Tactical'.
I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing though. You're talking about a strategic attack (because "on the United States"). My source seemed to suggest a tactical strike.
You said it was a good thing to risk nuclear war over something so stupid. One of the most interesting things to me was that Kennedy ordered US bases in Turkey and Italy to not strike if the USSR decided to bomb those nuclear facilities in retaliation.
Elsewhere, you claim that he has complete control and that he can even sign away parts of the territory of the state without being assassinated by the army or the FSB.
I think it's almost certan that you will get miscalculation in situations like that. If you don't strike back, the other side will escalate. If you strike back too hard, he feels he has to retaliate harder. It's pretty mad.
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.
It's also at the General level, which has always been an American weakness. Its why our army relies so much on NCO's and delegation of command, while Generals have historically made plans little more complicated than "Advance in this direction and kill anything that looks at you funny." Which is why US Generals tend to stand out when they do something other than that (see: Grant, Bradley, Patton, Schwarzkopf, Mattis, etc).
As for the actual soldiers and NCO's, I can say this: I live near a military base. I see soldiers around town all the time. And you want to know what they are? They are still the same corn-fed, beef-eating, "Sounds like something a soy-cuck would say", gun-nut loving Americans they have always been.
Let the Generals become fools. They havent really mattered to our military ability.
This is very interesting. You probably don't remember, but we once discussed this when I told you that the war aims needed to be as limited as possible, if only so that you would come out as a victor regardless of how they turned out. This is also why the US is exaggerating the war aims: if Russia doesn't conquer every last inch, they DID IT, we saved the farms west of Lwow.
Seen objectively, the Winter War was a victory for the USSR.
Only times your puppet has gained anything, is when the Russians were woefully undermanned. You're just cheering the prospect of your fellow Orthodox being cut down by artillery. Sad. I guess geopolitical interests run thicker than religion.
I don't see Russia losing any serious amounts of territory, for reasons I specified earlier. I do support retreating to save manpower when that is necessary though. If you lose your manpower, you will lose the territory, but if you make your opponent bleed, you can use the manpower you saved to take back the terrritory and then some.
Imagine if the USSR hadn't allowed Germany to encircle millions of Red Army soldiers in the first few months.
I specifically remember a reference to Mussolini. If thye're that afraid, then nukes are far more likely than otherwise.
You think Russian elites will put up with Putin dismembering and destroying the country, but not with general mobilization? Then you are grievously wrong about who the elites are. It's not the wealthy oligrachs. It's the security elite. They don't mess around. Of course, you want to pretend this ain't the case so you can advocate for MASSIVE ESCALATION and tell yourself that you're going to win, and blame the "libs" when you don't.
Are you from Georgia or Ukraine? Your anti-Russian hysteria doesn't make sense otherwise.
You know your wishful thinking.
Not the whole world. Just the Empire. Why does this sort of thing not happen in Russia, China or Hungary?