|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 23 2022 04:23 DropBear wrote:
This is really starting to give me anxiety. Why can't these old men just live in peace rather than sending the youth to their deaths for no reason? Threatening to end the world because they want a few extra square kilometres
You don't generally get to retire as a leader of Russia. They're boxed in and desperate.
|
Tanks are being discussed in the highest diplomatic circles and being considered but the M1 Abrams are a concern not that they can't use them, but the logistics behind using them. The other problem, continues, to be Berlin.
Kyiv’s request for Western-style tanks predates the most recent counteroffensive and Russia’s withdrawal from much of eastern Ukraine. But in the last two weeks, senior U.S. officials have discussed with European allies, including Germany, the possibility of sending tanks to the fight, according to a senior U.S. official and an individual familiar with the matter.
“It’s top of their list now, it didn’t used to be,” said one congressional staffer familiar with the request. “They are trying to retake territory and tanks are helpful for doing that.”
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said “the Ukrainians definitely want the Leopards” and have been frustrated that Germany has denied the permits to Spain and other countries that were willing to donate them. The Leopard tank is one of the most in-demand main battle tanks in Europe, in use in over a dozen countries.
NATO countries have been providing Ukraine with Soviet-era tanks and fighting vehicles over the course of the conflict, led by Poland, which donated about 250 T-72 tanks this spring. Warsaw inked a $1.1 billion deal in July to buy 250 of the most modern Abrams tanks to replace them.
The Germans have been backfilling smaller countries that are sending their own armored vehicles to Ukraine, and in May pledged to transfer 15 Leopards from their own stocks to the Czech Republic after they sent their own Russian-made armor to Kyiv. In August, Berlin agreed to send another 15 Leopards to Slovakia to replace the 30 armored infantry fighting vehicles they donated. Several countries, including Spain, requested German permission to hand their tanks over to Ukraine, but were denied the permits as Berlin continues to struggle with its longstanding policy of refusing to export arms to conflict zones.
German defense company Rheinmetall also requested government approval to export 88 Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but Berlin refused to grant permission.
Modern tanks could make a significant difference on the battlefield heading into the winter, as Putin readies the additional 300,000 troops for deployment. Experts said it’s not clear yet how long it will take Moscow to train and equip the troops for the fight, particularly as they have a mix of combat experience.
Speaking at a defense industry conference in Texas on Wednesday, Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister Volodymyr Havrylov said “winter also is a window of opportunity for [our] military,” and equipped with the “right armament and equipment, we can also succeed more during the wintertime.”
Before heading to Texas, Havrylov spent several days in Washington meeting with Pentagon and defense industry officials about what Ukraine is looking for in the coming months. He warned that while “some people here and in Europe still think that Russia is a sleeping bear, but in fact it is a frightened jackal in a bear’s skin.”
Source
|
I'm sure Poland is ready to buy Berlin if it changes their mind. ;-)
|
United States41983 Posts
On September 23 2022 02:31 kornetka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. Well, it seems Medvedev states exactly that: Show nested quote +"The protection of all the territories that have joined in [after the referenda in occupied territories] will be significantly strengthened by Russia’s Armed Forces," Medvedev wrote.
He added that "not only mobilization capabilities, but also any Russian weapons, including strategic nuclear weapons and weapons based on new principles, can be used for such protection.". tass.com
This is his hundredth red line so far this week. I’m surprised he still has ink in his red pen. Nobody listened to him the last 99 times and he didn’t do shit about it. This is exactly why you don’t bluff about red lines, someone calls your bluff and now you can’t say where your actual red lines are because you’re a known liar.
|
On September 23 2022 06:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 02:31 kornetka wrote:On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. Well, it seems Medvedev states exactly that: "The protection of all the territories that have joined in [after the referenda in occupied territories] will be significantly strengthened by Russia’s Armed Forces," Medvedev wrote.
He added that "not only mobilization capabilities, but also any Russian weapons, including strategic nuclear weapons and weapons based on new principles, can be used for such protection.". tass.com This is his hundredth red line so far this week. I’m surprised he still has ink in his red pen. Nobody listened to him the last 99 times and he didn’t do shit about it. This is exactly why you don’t bluff about red lines, someone calls your bluff and now you can’t say where your actual red lines are because you’re a known liar.
this
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to.
On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that.
I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them.
On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable.
I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them.
|
United States41983 Posts
On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them.
The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them.
And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla.
No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious.
So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with.
While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit.
As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that.
|
What is this even about?
Countries with no nukes getting them if Russia decided to nuke something?
Countries with no nukes will not get them anyways in "reasonable" time if you know what i mean, so i am a bit confused in like how could some countries like let's say Finland or Estonia or Poland get nukes asap in case Russia decided to nuke Ukraine?
|
|
|
On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since.
The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do".
There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?)
|
|
|
On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal.
Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think?
|
|
|
On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at?
That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at.
|
On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:
[quote]
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention.
This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them.
You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable.
Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada.
You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate.
If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at.
I don't think we're in any territory to assert that the second nuke was unnecessary. By many arguments, it was the Human way of ending the war as opposed to other avenues.
Inarguably as the United states was the only one that had nukes, and that no one had enough to end the world. The difference between the nukes that were dropped to end the war and modern nukes are the difference of a stick of dynamite and kilograms of military grade explosives.
|
On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:
Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to.
[quote]
I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them.
[quote]
I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I don't think we're in any territory to assert that the second nuke was unnecessary. By many arguments, it was the Human way of ending the war as opposed to other avenues.
I guess this is the American way of thinking 
|
On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:
Inarguably as the United states was the only one that had nukes, and that no one had enough to end the world. The difference between the nukes that were dropped to end the war and modern nukes are the difference of a stick of dynamite and kilograms of military grade explosives.
I am sorry but are you really claiming that if only one nation is gonna use nukes it's just fine as long as it's not enough to end the world?
Huh i guess Russia actually DOES have a legitmate reason to nuke the shit out of anyone..
|
On September 23 2022 12:39 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them.
And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla.
No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I don't think we're in any territory to assert that the second nuke was unnecessary. By many arguments, it was the Human way of ending the war as opposed to other avenues. I guess this is the American way of thinking
Look the options on the table was an invasion of the island or the nuclear bombing of a few cities. As bad as it may seem the option to use nukes was the one that would have resulted in a lot less deaths. That way of thinking coming from the many times islands of japan were invaded and what it took to invade them.
|
On September 23 2022 12:42 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:
Inarguably as the United states was the only one that had nukes, and that no one had enough to end the world. The difference between the nukes that were dropped to end the war and modern nukes are the difference of a stick of dynamite and kilograms of military grade explosives. I am sorry but are you really claiming that if only one nation is gonna use nukes it's just fine as long as it's not enough to end the world? Huh i guess Russia actually DOES have a legitmate reason to nuke the shit out of anyone..
No I'm saying when only one nation has nukes in the world and that the use of said nukes won't result in the end of the world and when the use of said nukes would result in less death than using nukes is justified.
the first two qualifiers don't apply anymore. More than one nation has nukes, the use of nukes would end the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
