War in Ukraine

#78,527
#78,527
LouderVol said:
it was a gun buy back program for WMDs. just like most buy back programs it failed its stated goal.

in your world, the Ukrainians sold the Russians Russian weapons and received massive economic benefits, as well as an agreement their borders wouldn't be violated (from either side) and thus would receive support from whoever the "other" was that didn't attack them. kinda freaking brilliant for the Ukrainians, and dumb for the Russians to buy something that was already theirs.

I don't think Russia, Ukraine, or the US has developed any new nukes. the US and Russia have updated the platforms that carry them, but they are all still the same. which just goes back to my point of them not being Russian-only nukes, which you are still avoiding.
Click to expand...

I would say its the equivalent of saying New Mexico has nuclear weapons as they were produced there or components were produced there. The Ukraine gave them up or gave them back, so what? The world basically told them they should give them back, you can call it give them up.... it doesn't really matter. In theory, they could have produced some over the last 30 years. (i doubt)

I seriously doubt anyone can for sure say who is developing what, so on that point I guess I will fold. ( Why the Biden administration’s new nuclear gravity bomb is tragic) At the end of the day that was 30+ years ago. If the point is, countries shouldn't give up their nuclear weapons... on that I generally agree... matter of fact, Iran and the rest of the middle east are way behind the curve.

If one is repurposing the enriched uranium and decommissioning one warhead and making a new one... is that producing a new warhead? (I would say so what, all the major players have enough to repurpose)

If or when the United States finally kicks the bucket, I would imagine even more issues than what happened to USSR.
 
Last edited:
#78,528
#78,528
Orangeburst said:
so you could envision an entire European continent engaged in war, and the US sits it out?
Click to expand...
Oh I didn’t say that but it could be interpreted that way I agree. If all of Europe is at war we can’t help ourselves we’d jump in as history shows.

My point is Europe alone can easily handle this. Even a portion of Europe could handle this. The US alone could handle the orcs. All of them together would curb stomp the orcs. And Putin knows this and wants no part of it. I believe his nuke threats are empty because if he lights even one single low yield one off Russia ceases to exist. I view all the nuke bluster as background noise and hollow threats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and MontyPython
#78,529
#78,529
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh I didn’t say that but it could be interpreted that way I agree. If all of Europe is at war we can’t help ourselves we’d jump in as history shows.

My point is Europe alone can easily handle this. Even a portion of Europe could handle this. The US alone could handle the orcs. All of them together would curb stomp the orcs. And Putin knows this and wants no part of it. I believe his bike threats are empty because if he lights one single low yield one off even Russia ceases to exist. I view all the nuke bluster as background noise and hollow threats.
Click to expand...
bike threats are the worst. Getting Schwinned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and NorthDallas40
#78,531
#78,531
LSU-SIU said:
I would say its the equivalent of saying New Mexico has nuclear weapons as they were produced there or components were produced there. The Ukraine gave them up or gave them back, so what? The world basically told them they should give them back, you can call it give them up.... it doesn't really matter. In theory, they could have produced some over the last 30 years. (i doubt)

I seriously doubt anyone can for sure say who is developing what, so on that point I guess I will fold. ( Why the Biden administration’s new nuclear gravity bomb is tragic) At the end of the day that was 30+ years ago. If the point is, countries shouldn't give up their nuclear weapons... on that I generally agree... matter of fact, Iran and the rest of the middle east are way behind the curve.

If one is repurposing the enriched uranium and decommissioning one warhead and making a new one... is that producing a new warhead? (I would say so what, all the major players have enough to repurpose)

If or when the United States finally kicks the bucket, I would imagine even more issues than what happened to USSR.
Click to expand...
I agree to the last. because there won't be anyone even pretending to be the responsible adult once we are gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#78,534
#78,534
LSU-SIU said:
I would say its the equivalent of saying New Mexico has nuclear weapons as they were produced there or components were produced there. The Ukraine gave them up or gave them back, so what? The world basically told them they should give them back, you can call it give them up.... it doesn't really matter. In theory, they could have produced some over the last 30 years. (i doubt)

I seriously doubt anyone can for sure say who is developing what, so on that point I guess I will fold. ( Why the Biden administration’s new nuclear gravity bomb is tragic) At the end of the day that was 30+ years ago. If the point is, countries shouldn't give up their nuclear weapons... on that I generally agree... matter of fact, Iran and the rest of the middle east are way behind the curve.

If one is repurposing the enriched uranium and decommissioning one warhead and making a new one... is that producing a new warhead? (I would say so what, all the major players have enough to repurpose)

If or when the United States finally kicks the bucket, I would imagine even more issues than what happened to USSR.
Click to expand...
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
 
#78,535
#78,535
Rasputin_Vol said:
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is palpable.
1000007212.png
1000007211.png

Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
 
#78,536
#78,536
It really isn't that hard to find out the truth, guys.

Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction

While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, Russia controlled the launch sequence and maintained operational control of the nuclear warheads and its weapons system.
Click to expand...


Upon Ukraine’s 1991 independence, over 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons were left on its territory. Ukraine never possessed operational control of the weapons, and all were removed to Russia under a 1994 agreement in exchange for security assurances.
Click to expand...
 
#78,538
#78,538
Rasputin_Vol said:
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean, since the end of the 80s the United States was telling everyone - you better do what we tell you or you better have nukes. Seems simple enough. I would probably add a new twist... you better have nukes and you better have a financial system which can survive removal of access to the global financial systems.

Which is what the U.S. is threatening Germany and Europe with. The U.S. wasn't going to allow Germany to buddy up with Russia.
 
#78,539
#78,539
Rasputin_Vol said:
When they say this nonsense about Ukrainian nukes being a deterrent to Putler, they are too dumb to realize that they are making the argument for Iran to have nukes. If Iran had nukes, the US and Israel wouldn't be straining at the leash to get into a war with them. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad should have had nukes, as well.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
#78,545
#78,545
LouderVol said:
russia isn't going to do crap to the US or NATO. this war proves it.

Ukraine, isn't part of NATO, has no way to join NATO, and previously got rejected by NATO, gets invaded.
Finland crosses Putin's red line of joining NATO, isn't invaded. Putin doesn't even say squat.

stop with the warmongering. there are plenty of ways out without losing American lives. the US or NATO getting directly involved turns this into a nuclear war. this war is clearly not going to be a nuclear war otherwise.

the worst part is your rhetoric is feeding Putin's own disinformation campaign, and you are too oblivious to realize it.
Click to expand...
Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.

I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.
 
#78,546
#78,546
NorthDallas40 said:
Nobody should believe a word of what Panda boi says. I’ve no doubt he indeed told Macron what is outlined in that tweet and I’ve no doubt he has zero intention of following thru on those commitments
Click to expand...

He will sell weapons to North Korea and they will sell to Russia. Easy way to keep their word.

Then again, maybe China is realizing how much money they are making off the West and that Putin isn't worth breaking that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#78,548
#78,548
hog88 said:
When are you signing up?
Click to expand...
If the us were committing troops to ukraine, I'd consider joining up for their aid (if the military takes 50 year olds with poor eyesight). Unfortunately, I think I'd be signing up for the fools crusade in iran as things look now.

I guess theres always the paramilitary route, but I dont have any experience, and with the July deadline for a third candidate to enter our presidential race rapidly approaching, it looks like I'd be arriving about the same time the russian offensive truly begins -- when they're sure trump will be the president again -- and the genocide fully and sadly arrives for ukrainians.
 
#78,549
#78,549
jvol1 said:
Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.

I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.
Click to expand...

When are you signing up?
 
#78,550
#78,550
jvol1 said:
Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.

I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.
Click to expand...
the defense of that country in your book involves war, thus you are warmongering.

when did we have Ukraine to "lose" it?

There is maybe a 5% chance that "losing" Ukraine makes another POSSIBLE war more difficult. But I am worried about the very real, actual, and current war you want us involved in. that is a far more tangible threat, and one already with the highest stakes, war with a nation armed with nukes who has expressed a willingness to use them. Not sure how it gets more difficult than that.

some of the greatest faults with humanity comes when we try to preempt something. believing we know the future, and that a chosen course of action will be "better". we don't know any of it.

Afghanistan and Iraq were reactive wars to fight terrorism to make sure there was no threat in the future. we created an ever greater threat with ISIS, and destabilized the regions, costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Vietnam we HAD to keep the commies out. guess what, we lost, costing us thousands of lives. and in the end Vietnam is no longer communist anyway.

WW1, the war to end all wars, created the biggest war this world has seen.

I am not for isolationism. I am absolutely for standing up for our allies if they are attacked. but these preemptive wars have not fixed anything, not helped our nation, and generally just made the problems worse than before we were involved. There is NO reason to think this time will be any different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel and MG1968
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top