War in Ukraine

#85,401
#85,401
#85,402
#85,402
McDad said:
1998. Does a missile sit in a silo for decades and not degrade over time? Are they keeping their nukes maintained and mission-ready? Are we?
Click to expand...

A good portion of their nuclear arsenal delivery systems has been overhauled i.e. hypersonics, and other portions have always been mobile i.e. subs and vehicle based since the start. Also, you have nuclear bombers with air to surface with nuclear payloads.

Russia became more of nuclear military than a conventional military after the fall of USSR because of the lack of $$$$$. That is why they have the widest variety of delivery systems in the world - that is where they put their money. (that is what the military told Congress they aimed to do, and its what they did do)

Are they keeping their nukes maintained and mission-ready? Are we?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I guess its a question, but not sure one people want to actually find out on the spot as far as the large ICBMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#85,403
#85,403
#85,404
#85,404
LouderVol said:
I agree. this is why I have said from day 1 it ends when Russia stops effing with them.

as long as that spectre is lingering over Ukraine's head they seem to be saying that anything is preferrable to that. Pretty much all of them are going to have parents who were impacted by Holodomr. their suffering and death will likely only get worse if they are fully under Russian control.
Click to expand...

You mean "Western Russia" (stricken for correctness) as that is the reality and course this is going. Not sure the Ukrainians will have to worry about that if this continues, see my 2022 post... push them into Poland.

Nobody wants those people, nor to look after them. I guess I feel bad for them allowing themselves to be pawns but not much I can do.
 
#85,405
#85,405
BeardedVol said:
We're spending roughly $50 billion annually on maintaining and modernizing our nuclear arsenal.
www.defensenews.com

Here’s how many billions the US will spend on nuclear weapons over the next decade

Expect the U.S. to spend a lot of money over the next decade on building up its nuclear arsenal.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
If I've learned anything about government spending over the decades it is this, money spent does not equate to results. With that said, I assume we would be in a better position to maintain and modernize compared to Russia because of our economic superiority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and LouderVol
#85,407
#85,407
volinbham said:
While I generally agree with the efforts to bring this thing to an end I don't agree with pausing aid we already promised as a negotiating tool. That was a commitment. Hold out on future aid.
Click to expand...
As discussed yesterday there is still PLENTY of money committed by Congress that is as good as gone and hasn’t been spent. There is no need for further funding allocations today. And pulling this type of stunt with the Javelins was a big chunk of the fuel for his first impeachment. Granted the impeachment was ridiculous and ill founded however they’ve already seized on these kinds of antics before
 
#85,408
#85,408
McDad said:
Do you think if a single nuclear missile is launched from Russia to America, we would launch our full arsenal?

I don't know if we would. I think the "cry wolf" aspect of nuclear war has lost its punch with me. It's been, what, 60 or 70 years where the threat is there but nothing has happened?
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe we would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#85,410
#85,410
BeardedVol said:
@LSU-SIU

I didn't realize that you were this old.

Click to expand...

Just curious as to what your ACTUAL position is? It's very hard to tell with the ridiculous stuff you post. This should be very easy. Are you for continued war? Are you for peace? Whichever you choose, explain please in detail what you'd like to see done and what should be pledged by America? Unlimited war funds and weapons? Boots on the ground? The death of Putin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#85,413
#85,413
McDad said:
Do you think if a single nuclear missile is launched from Russia to America, we would launch our full arsenal?

I don't know if we would. I think the "cry wolf" aspect of nuclear war has lost its punch with me. It's been, what, 60 or 70 years where the threat is there but nothing has happened?
Click to expand...

but who else might jump in on the action?
 
#85,416
#85,416
BeardedVol said:
Putin literally sent Russian "mercenaries" to attack US special forces in Syria, and we didn't end up in WWIII. Ukraine has been using US weapons to fight back a Russian invasion for 3 years running now, and in spite of Russia threatening nuclear strikes on regular basis, we are no closer to WWIII than we were on 2/24/2022. If all it takes is to say "WWIII" to remove the spine out of American foreign policy, then we might was well surrender any standing we have in the world now.

Capitulating to Putin is the quickest way to make sure that Russian aggression continues and/or occurs again in the future; see Obama/Merkel/Sarkozy in 2014 as a reference.

Back then the GOP hadn't yet morphed into a cult of personality that idolizes strongman dictators.
www.theguardian.com

Obama wary of fight with Republicans over Russia sanctions

GOP pushing for sanctions directed against senior Russian officials close to Putin as administration fears Iran repeat
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Correction, it appears the Syrians and Wagner militia involved were not aware of US presence until it was too late........ That would seem to fit with the haphazard way in which the assault was conducted.


Also of importance is the distinction between regular Russian military and Wagner. Which is splitting hairs but a merc army is a merc army. One could argue we had our own mercs operating in Ukraine and a Russia.

Figuring out where to go from here absolutely does place us closer to hostilities than before 2022. Unless we take the status quo approach, which we can't afford. Ukraine can't advance without an infusion of troops. That means foreign fighters.... From the West.... That absolutely escalates the war and puts us much closer to direct conflict. If Europe was strong enough as a coalition to handle this that would be great....... But if they put troops on the ground in Ukraine it could get messy..... It's a huge cluster with no end in sight, what would you do?

Your last sentence is very troubling to me. We have dictated war and conflict for others for decades, all from our position of being the supreme super power. We were the supreme dictators, what we said went, when and how we wanted it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#85,417
#85,417
tnmarktx said:
Just curious as to what your ACTUAL position is? It's very hard to tell with the ridiculous stuff you post. This should be very easy. Are you for continued war? Are you for peace? Whichever you choose, explain please in detail what you'd like to see done and what should be pledged by America? Unlimited war funds and weapons? Boots on the ground? The death of Putin?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#85,418
#85,418
McDad said:
Do you think if a single nuclear missile is launched from Russia to America, we would launch our full arsenal?

I don't know if we would. I think the "cry wolf" aspect of nuclear war has lost its punch with me. It's been, what, 60 or 70 years where the threat is there but nothing has happened?
Click to expand...
Not the full arsenal necessarily, but there would be at least a proportionate response. And should that happen you have countries all over the globe tracking nuclear weapons in the air wondering who is targeting and where. Too many variables that lead to MOD for my liking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#85,420
#85,420
KB5252 said:
Correction, it appears the Syrians and Wagner militia involved were not aware of US presence until it was too late........ That would seem to fit with the haphazard way in which the adult was conducted.


Also if importance is the distinction between regular Russian military and Wagner. Which is splitting hairs but a merc army is a merc army. One could argue we had our own mercs operating in Ukraine and a Russia.

Figuring out where to go from here absolutely does place us closer to hostilities than before 2022. Unless we take the status quo approach, which we can't afford. Ukraine can't advance without an infusion of troops. That means foreign fighters.... From the West.... That absolutely escalates the war and puts us much closer to direct conflict. If Europe was strong enough as a coalition to handle this that would be great....... But if the put troops on the ground in Ukraine it could get messy..... It's a huge cluster with no end in sight, what would you do?

Your last sentence is very troubling to me. We have dictated war and conflict for others for decades, all from our position of being the supreme super power. We were the supreme dictators, what we said went, when and how we wanted it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#85,421
#85,421
NorthDallas40 said:
Glass houses and what not. “If we don’t retaliate with a massive counter attack what good is the nuclear deterrent?” That will be the argument/excuse made.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#85,423
#85,423
KB5252 said:
Not the full arsenal necessarily, but there would be at least a proportionate response. And should that happen you have countries all over the globe tracking nuclear weapons in the air wondering who is targeting and where. Too many variables that lead to MOD for my liking.
Click to expand...
MOD???
 
#85,424
#85,424
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top