War in Ukraine

[NorthDallas40]

MOD???

I’m thinking that was supposed to be MAD mutually assured destruction

 

[hog88]

what do you mean...what other nukular-capable countries would launch?

IDK but when missiles start launching others may want to jump in on the action. Pakistan and/or India might look at it as an opportunity, NK might decide to take it's shot while the US is otherwise occupied. It's a gamble.

 

[NorthDallas40]

IDK but when missiles start launching others may want to jump in on the action. Pakistan and/or India might look at it as an opportunity, NK might decide to take it's shot while the US is otherwise occupied. It's a gamble.

It’s a completely unknown scenario. They’ve only been used twice, by us, in a first launch (drop) scenario and at the time nobody could shoot back.

 

[Grand Vol]

You apparently haven't read many of @LSU-SIU 's posts where he regurgitates Russian nonsense the same way that demented old man does in the video.

I've articulated my position numerous times in depth in this thread here are the cliff notes:

1) Ukraine complied materially with our demands under the Budapest Memorandum, destroyed or gave up the very weapons that would have prevented Russia's ability to invade them. We can either support them as we said we would, or compensate them for the weapons they gave up.

2) If we uphold our agreement in the Budapest Memorandum, or compensate Ukraine for the weapons they gave up to comply with the agreement, I'd give Ukraine every weapon they asked for short of nuclear weapons that they could make use of, for as long as they choose to defend themselves.

3) I'd sanction every Russian oligarch, and ban all Russian visas for US travel.

4) I'd give Ukraine NATO membership as soon the conflict ended, because NATO membership is the only way to guarantee that Russia doesn't rearm and reinvade the same way they did with Chechnya after the IMF bailed them out.

The war could end to day if Putin stopped waging it, he's the only reason that the war continues at this point.

1: Agree. We helped disarm them and make it easy for an invasion. Plus, we denied them military aid outside of field kitchens and sleeping bags for years.

2: Partially agree, but not "give" them anything. They can pay for it even if it is long term loans or guarantees.

3: No. What purpose would that serve?

4: Hell no. You still just aren't getting the cause and effect of putting more NATO bases on the Russian border. They keep reacting to it in forceful ways.

Georgia started talking about NATO membership... got invaded.

Ukraine started making noise about it... there goes Crimea...

Starts talking about it again... there goes Donbass...

And don't give me the Finland example. They only requested to join after Ukraine got invaded.

Maybe NATO needs to stop moving east. This is not the same Russia of the Cold War with global domination on its mind. Treat them like an equal and see what happens. Continue treating them with disdain and watch what happens.

 

[hndog609]

I could very well be naive on this but I just don't think people are as willing to take action on a full scale nuclear war as they are to think about it as a concept of deterrence.

I could not "turn the key" if I was manning the station.

See, it's people like you that made Joshua necessary.

 

[KB5252]

Wagner was not a "mercenary" force, that was known before 2022, and driven home when Prigozhen was allowed to go to Russian prisons and conscript prisoners.. What's left of it isn't now either, as it's carrying out Moscow's will in Africa. It's the equivalent of the Russian foreign legion with plausible deniability.

If Biden/Jake Sullivan hadn't been so concerned with escalation management, and stopped Ukraine from striking military targets in Ukraine in 2022-2023, Ukraine could have dealt a deathblow to the terrible Russian logistics system, and Putin wouldn't have been able to sustain forward operations even if he'd wanted to. So again, Ukraine has suffered, because of US policy and inaction.

What would I do? I'd give them tomahawk cruise missiles and tell them to take out the Kerch bridge tomorrow. I'd allow them to strike any military target inside Russia. I'd stop limiting them on how they can defend themselves.

Intent matters. I don't agree with our involvement in the second invasion of Iraq, or our attempt to nation-build in Afghanistan, but the US isn't invading countries and claiming territory, so trying to equate 'war-on-terror' military actions, with Russian imperialism of invading and conquering lands to add to Russia, is disingenuous at best.

Point one is a futile distinction ..... You even said as much. They are a merc army for intents of plausible deniability.

I agree with paragraph number two. I think it could have completely changed battlefield dynamics. This is what happens when you have weak leadership. I do however think they were operating out of abundance of caution with variables inside Russia beyond our control.

Paragraph number 3 means we keep infusing money we don't have into a ship that is no longer sea worthy. Ukraine doesn't have the fighting force, boots on ground to sustain this. It would in effect become a guerilla war with precision munitions.

Paragraph 4 the US was claiming territory and attempting to install governments........ Our reasons for war were no more or less altruistic than Russia. Russia wants a warm water port and industrial hub. We wanted to line the pockets of MIC and have playground to test/advertise our military capabilities.

 

[Grand Vol]

What would I do? I'd give them tomahawk cruise missiles and tell them to take out the Kerch bridge tomorrow. I'd allow them to strike any military target inside Russia. I'd stop limiting them on how they can defend themselves.

Never mind... you've lost your mind and want to precipitate a larger war.

Do you really think Russia is going to back down if US made Tomahawks start raining down on strategic targets inside of Russia?

Might as well give them B-2s while we're at it so they can really get the party started.

I'm sure an Ohio class sub would be fine as long as we put conventional warheads on the Tridents.

 

[KB5252]

MOD???

LOL MAD........ Or moms on dope..... Whichever you prefer

 

[BeardedVol]

1: Agree. We helped disarm them and make it easy for an invasion. Plus, we denied them military aid outside of field kitchens and sleeping bags for years.

2: Partially agree, but not "give" them anything. They can pay for it even if it is long term loans or guarantees.

3: No. What purpose would that serve?

4: Hell no. You still just aren't getting the cause and effect of putting more NATO bases on the Russian border. They keep reacting to it in forceful ways.

Georgia started talking about NATO membership... got invaded.

Ukraine started making noise about it... there goes Crimea...

Starts talking about it again... there goes Donbass...

And don't give me the Finland example. They only requested to join after Ukraine got invaded.

Maybe NATO needs to stop moving east. This is not the same Russia of the Cold War with global domination on its mind. Treat them like an equal and see what happens. Continue treating them with disdain and watch what happens.

3: No. What purpose would that serve?

Because the Russian government is built like a mafia organization, you can't sanction Putin, the way to hurt him is to make his lieutenants unable to fund him, and since it's only the wealthy that can ever travel outside of Russia, the blanket visa ban ensures that the families of the oligarch's have to share in those sanctions.

4: Hell no. You still just aren't getting the cause and effect of putting more NATO bases on the Russian border. They keep reacting to it in forceful ways.

Russia doesn't attack NATO members, that's the only scenario that ensures that Russia doesn't rearm and attack in 5 years. No need for permanent bases in Ukraine, standard NATO troop rotations will suffice, see Latvia and Estonia. Otherwise you are just setting Ukraine up for another 2014-2022 period, and another conflict.

 

[hog88]

3: No. What purpose would that serve?

Because the Russian government is built like a mafia organization, you can't sanction Putin, the way to hurt him is to make his lieutenants unable to fund him, and since it's only the wealthy that can ever travel outside of Russia, the blanket visa ban ensures that the families of the oligarch's have to share in those sanctions.

4: Hell no. You still just aren't getting the cause and effect of putting more NATO bases on the Russian border. They keep reacting to it in forceful ways.

Russia doesn't attack NATO members, that's the only scenario that ensures that Russia doesn't rearm and attack in 5 years. No need for permanent bases in Ukraine, standard NATO troop rotations will suffice, see Latvia and Estonia. Otherwise you are just setting Ukraine up for another 2014-2022 period, and another conflict.

You should be railing against Europe for funding Putin's war.

 

[McDad]

I couldn’t either. That’s why they have extensive psyche evals to eliminate wusses like you and I.

I think after the first one flies it would quickly grow to a full exchange over the course of a couple back and forths with an escalation on each round.

I don't think so. And if it ever came to that, I hope I am proven right.

 

[Grand Vol]

3: No. What purpose would that serve?

Because the Russian government is built like a mafia organization, you can't sanction Putin, the way to hurt him is to make his lieutenants unable to fund him, and since it's only the wealthy that can ever travel outside of Russia, the blanket visa ban ensures that the families of the oligarch's have to share in those sanctions.

4: Hell no. You still just aren't getting the cause and effect of putting more NATO bases on the Russian border. They keep reacting to it in forceful ways.

Russia doesn't attack NATO members, that's the only scenario that ensures that Russia doesn't rearm and attack in 5 years. No need for permanent bases in Ukraine, standard NATO troop rotations will suffice, see Latvia and Estonia. Otherwise you are just setting Ukraine up for another 2014-2022 period, and another conflict.

Our government is built like a Mafia organization too... don't act like we're pristine in world affairs.

So, we should "bottle up" Russia, even knowing how ****ing paranoid they are about external threats, so they won't invade?

You've lost it.

 

[McDad]

See, it's people like you that made Joshua necessary.

I feel like Steve Rogers aka Captain America, "I got that reference".

 

[BeardedVol]

Never mind... you've lost your mind and want to precipitate a larger war.

Do you really think Russia is going to back down if US made Tomahawks start raining down on strategic targets inside of Russia?

Might as well give them B-2s while we're at it so they can really get the party started.

I'm sure an Ohio class sub would be fine as long as we put conventional warheads on the Tridents.

Appeasing Putin will lead to larger wars.

Remember when Russia said HIMARS were a red line?

Remember When Russia said Patriot batteries were a red line?

Remember when they said F-16s were a red line?

Ukraine can't make use of a B-2 or an Ohio class sub, that's why I prefaced it with "any weapons they can actually use".

We've never even given them the quantity of any weapon system to actually utilize fully without husbanding all of their strength for months while hardware trickles in because Jake Sullivan was more concerned with escalation management, than he was giving Ukraine a fighting chance to defend themselves, and in spite of that terrible policy, they forced Russia to have to pull back, and continue to hold them at bay today.

 

[KB5252]

I don't think so. And if it ever came to that, I hope I am proven right.

I don't know the answer to this. But my concern is that it would be difficult to know where launches were headed by many, if not most countries.

Not sure how that works, that would be my concern. Everyone gets nervous and it spirals.

 

[McDad]

Appeasing Putin will lead to larger wars.

Remember when Russia said HIMARS were a red line?

Remember When Russia said Patriot batteries were a red line?

Remember when they said F-16s were a red line?

Ukraine can't make use of a B-2 or an Ohio class sub, that's why I prefaced it with "any weapons they can actually use".

We've never even given them the quantity of any weapon system to actually utilize fully without husbanding all of their strength for months while hardware trickles in because Jake Sullivan was more concerned with escalation management, than he was giving Ukraine a fighting chance to defend themselves, and in spite of that terrible policy, they forced Russia to have to pull back, and continue to hold them at bay today.

Hopefully any other country at risk of invasion by Russia is now investing heavily in their own defense. Let Ukraine's lack of preparation be a warning to others.

 

[BeardedVol]

Our government is built like a Mafia organization too... don't act like we're pristine in world affairs.

So, we should "bottle up" Russia, even knowing how ****ing paranoid they are about external threats, so they won't invade?

You've lost it.

No, our government is not built like a mafia organization, you want to equate the two because it helps stave off the cognitive dissonance required to support throwing Ukraine to Russia. It's hard to reconcile hyper-partisanship with it conflicts your sense of morality.

Again, Russia doesn't invade NATO members. Finland joined. Sweden joined. Nothing. That's how it works.

Disagree? Show me Russia invading a NATO member?

 

[BeardedVol]

Hopefully any other country at risk of invasion by Russia is now investing heavily in their own defense. Let Ukraine's lack of preparation be a warning to others.

I would say that there are several countries that are rethinking their lack of a nuclear weapons program at the moment.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don't think so. And if it ever came to that, I hope I am proven right.

If it ever comes to that all of the theory and rhetoric of MAD has failed. I’d hope you were right also but I don’t think we’d be willing to eat a nuke and lose a city without taking four or five out in response. And then they take out five or six more. And we…

 

[Grand Vol]

Appeasing Putin will lead to larger wars.

Remember when Russia said HIMARS were a red line?

Remember When Russia said Patriot batteries were a red line?

Remember when they said F-16s were a red line?

Ukraine can't make use of a B-2 or an Ohio class sub, that's why I prefaced it with "any weapons they can actually use".

We've never even given them the quantity of any weapon system to actually utilize fully without husbanding all of their strength for months while hardware trickles in because Jake Sullivan was more concerned with escalation management, than he was giving Ukraine a fighting chance to defend themselves, and in spite of that terrible policy, they forced Russia to have to pull back, and continue to hold them at bay today.

Oh, oh, here we go with the "appeasement Hitler" talks!

You truly can't see the cause and effect NATO expansion has.

Is Georgia even mentioned any longer as a candidate country? And why not?

Morons talked about Ukraine joining... what happened?

Again, the nations that stay neutral aren't under threat. Did Russia threaten Finland at any point since the end of the Cold War? (If it even ended)

Or Sweden?

You know what the Cold War taught those in power? War gets you rich. Its gone into hyperdrive since 9/11. This conflict in Ukraine is making all sorts of people rich whether it's through contracts or straight up embezzlement... or both.

 

[McDad]

I would say that there are several countries that are rethinking their lack of a nuclear weapons program at the moment.

smart to do so. I am not sure investing in nuclear is the best plan but at least they are doing something.

 

[KB5252]

Appeasing Putin will lead to larger wars.

Remember when Russia said HIMARS were a red line?

Remember When Russia said Patriot batteries were a red line?

Remember when they said F-16s were a red line?

Ukraine can't make use of a B-2 or an Ohio class sub, that's why I prefaced it with "any weapons they can actually use".

We've never even given them the quantity of any weapon system to actually utilize fully without husbanding all of their strength for months while hardware trickles in because Jake Sullivan was more concerned with escalation management, than he was giving Ukraine a fighting chance to defend themselves, and in spite of that terrible policy, they forced Russia to have to pull back, and continue to hold them at bay today.

Sentence#1 How exactly?

Escalation management in a conflict on a nuclear super powers doorstep is a bad thing?

I agree in some instances he may have been too cautious but caution was needed. You go in all cowboy and tactical nukes get used and you have a much different situation today.

If you were calling the shots I'd say the prospects of all out war with Russia would be much higher..... If not likely.

 

[McDad]

If it ever comes to that all of the theory and rhetoric of MAD has failed. I’d hope you were right also but I don’t think we’d be willing to eat a nuke and lose a city without taking four or five out in response. And then they take out five or six more. And we…

I think it might be akin to the 9-11 attacks. Our response would be a conventional invasion rather than a nuclear tit for tat.

 

[Grand Vol]

No, our government is not built like a mafia organization, you want to equate the two because it helps stave off the cognitive dissonance required to support throwing Ukraine to Russia. It's hard to reconcile hyper-partisanship with it conflicts your sense of morality.

Again, Russia doesn't invade NATO members. Finland joined. Sweden joined. Nothing. That's how it works.

Disagree? Show me Russia invading a NATO member?

Show me the rhetoric of Russia threatening Finland and Sweden before they applied for membership...

I'll wait.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Appeasing Putin will lead to larger wars.

Remember when Russia said HIMARS were a red line?

Remember When Russia said Patriot batteries were a red line?

Remember when they said F-16s were a red line?

Ukraine can't make use of a B-2 or an Ohio class sub, that's why I prefaced it with "any weapons they can actually use".

We've never even given them the quantity of any weapon system to actually utilize fully without husbanding all of their strength for months while hardware trickles in because Jake Sullivan was more concerned with escalation management, than he was giving Ukraine a fighting chance to defend themselves, and in spite of that terrible policy, they forced Russia to have to pull back, and continue to hold them at bay today.

Have you ever considered writing a book on how to arm Ukraine for life?