...
And some very welcome news about Orban...
Russian BS breaks the sound barrier
"The West launch an all out nuclear stealth attack on all Russian missile bases on land at the same time as the destruction of their fleet. "
There's no such thing as a stealth attack the way you describe it.
"though the West would get its beard singed"
Millions dead and the world in chaos and you think it would be all just fine?
Btw anyone who wants to read a bloomberg article without a subscription. Open the link in an incognito tab and then place another period "." between the ".com" and the "/".
So "bloomberg.com./<rest of the link>"
This is a development - a split of sorts surfacing?
Incorrect as per the net,
"France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States maintain policies that permit the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. "
Lads, your all losing the run of yourselves. You don't need nukes to get to the end game. You're more likely to see an attempt to instigate social and economic collapse through cyber attacks, regime changes or pandemics before you see nukes.
I understand. However it is logical really. who hits who first? General Turgidson's view in Dr Strangelove was correct only no one seemed to agree with him.
That's a bit of of date a first strike would involve stealth bombers unseen targeting Russian missile bases not ICBMs. Like a lot of things never is not a word that is appropriate in practice.
You seem to think that the first thing Russia knows about the west’s launch is when the missiles hit. The fact is Russia will know the missiles are in the air for many minutes, giving them ample time to launch. That’s what M.A.D. is - you can launch but I can launch my retaliation before your missiles hit, thus killing every one.
Also what about their mobile launchers, missile submarines, tactical nukes. They have over 5000 nukes and you want to risk a % of these getting through?
It’s never going to happen. Nukes are a step too far for any major power. The closest we will ever get to nukes will be some terrorist using a dirty bomb.
Anyway other than France the West has a no first strike rule with nukes.
Think people forget it isn't the blasts that you've to worry about. It's the radiation, damage to crops, collapse of trade systems leading to shortage of everything, possible global drop of temperatures, mass starvation, civil disorder and chaos, etc.
Fcuk it, think I'd rather go out in the blast.
Sometimes I get the impression he is not as much a fan of Putin as he seems. Maybe he is waiting to see how things turn out and he'll cozy up to the west if Putin fails. lol.
I'm sorry but your glibness with regards nuclear warfare makes it hard to take your stance seriously. "Some will get through" is a touch Dr Steangelove for handwaving away the small detail of Armageddon.
Who wins a nuclear war? Simple. Nobody wins.
Luka better keep away from Windows lol
Putin is the ultimate anti-Santa..
An admission from Lukashenko
It's never been tried and as I said some will get through however if the first strike is carried out the retaliation would be massively reduced. Other nuclear powers would be advised to stand back or face the same. The world is approaching WW3 as it is. It may be down to do you want to win or lose?
Wow. Some absolutely mad takes in here today.
Their capacity to retaliate is almost nil and many of the missile that are fired are shot down by US anti missile systems.
And all you need is 1 or 2 missiles to get through this shield, or that analysis to be completely incorrect and somehow miss bases not tracked by intel, to result in a nuclear holocaust. It's an incalculable risk to everything.
And.
While your scenario is playing out, every other nuclear power, secret or otherwise, will take the West's sudden use of nukes as a free pass. So India and Pakistan might become a hot war, china contemplates surgical strikes on Taiwan; god knows who else with secret nukes ala South Africa back in the day.
There is no "mild" or intellectually precise use of nuclear warfare.
Yes it would be a fight for peace really. Better a once off limited destruction on one side that a massive exchange and a nuclear winter. Better a 50M to 100M tops dead than 2 billion dead?
No, it does not.
Mutually assured destruction? or MAD not very encouraging is it? However, take this scenario with logic and without emotion..
Putin has threatened the West with nuclear destruction (already happened)
He has put his nuclear arms on high readyness (already happened)
Data from intelligence suggests Russia is preparing to fire their missiles soon (not happened yet) at this time most US anti submarine have a fix on the Russian missile subs.
The West launch an all out nuclear stealth attack on all Russian missile bases on land at the same time as the destruction of their fleet. Their capacity to retaliate is almost nil and many of the missile that are fired are shot down by US anti missile systems. Some will get through and though the West would get its beard singed the losses will be many orders less than waiting for the Russian madman to fire first..It may even save Russian civilian lives if the attack is targeted to missile sites mainly. Makes sense?
You have to understand IF (and its a very very hypothetical if) the west attack Russian forces in Ukraine the will do so by complete degradation of all military assets and reachable command and control centres with superior air power it would leave Ukraine if armed with enough ammunition the ability to roll the Russians out the gate In jig time
This is popping up on de X .. same type of message. No main media article on this yet if true .. could be fake
Ministry of Interior of Belarus: Through Telegram, Belarusians began to receive messages with proposals to carry out terrorist attacks: to carry out shootings in shopping centers or to mine buildings.
If the leading countries in the EU sent their soldiers into Ukraine and declared to Putin that all Russian forces must vacate the Ukrainian soil, Putin would submit. He will huff and bluff, but he will fold as soon as he sees a real resolve.
If that's how the EU operated, we wouldn't be living in a democracy though. That's a frustrating but necessary foundation to living in a democracy: we view force as always a Last Resort, not a First Option. It's not in our nature to pick a fight, rightly or wrongly and as much as it's frustrating to see us endlessly trying to avoid it.
We also value life and liberty far more than the other guy so it sounds nice to think Putin would fold the moment he saw all our shinier toys and better soldiers - but this is also a man who glibly saw 400,000 casualties happen for negligible gains - a shooting match with the EU would be exactly the narrative he'd be waiting for to drum up fanaticism in his serfs to fight for another 400,000 casualties. All the scaremongering and propaganda would be proven true the moment the Germans, Poles & French started shooting at Russians.
Putin might be a bully, but he also knows how to manipulate his control into preserving his own power at the expense of others'. It's enraging and we're not supporting Ukraine half as much as we should be, but we also gotta see our political class play it smartly too.
Indeed ,and I thought regime change was very much out of favour.
Sadly ,Russians have to create their own future and unless parts of the country are in open rebellion (and even then probably not) we should leave them to stew in the dysfunctional mess they have created for themselves.
That was the original plan when they invaded Ukraine and it is only because of the Ukrainians' own efforts to resist that we were almost shamed into giving them assistance.
Or how about replaying Putin's own "Little Green Men" stunt, the one he played in Donbass? Plausible deniability, I think it was called?
It could be a “special military operation” sure 🫢
true, but would that not mean declaring a war to a fascist ruSSia?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
