Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Phmcw]

We have a treaty thaat force us to protect Ukraine territorial integrity, and proof that Russian soldiers operate in the area. That's a casus Belli.

[smjjames]

You mean the Budapest treaty* memorandum? There isn't anything saying that NATO will come to Ukraines aid if Russia attacks it. All it says that in return for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear stockpile it inherited, both sides will leave Ukraine alone and not bully it or anything.

*When I typed Budapest treaty into wikipedia, it spat out a thing about microorganisms and patents.

[Phmcw]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

That's not binding, but enough to justify taking action.

[smjjames]

It does say that 'if Ukraine becomes the victim of aggression', however, things are FAR from being as simple as 'You attack Ukraine, treaty means that now I attack you.' The whole Crimea and Ukraine deal is, well, in a word, complex.

[MarcAFK]

I would interpret that as being 2 seperAte clauses, either bring a victim of the vaguely defined 'acts if aggression' or seperately having the threat of nuclear force made against it.

[Sergarr]

On that note, Russia has nuclear weapons and enough submarines that the second strike capability should be at least enough for 20 cities.

NATO would be insane to try and attack Russia head-on.

[Phmcw]

On that note, Russia has nuclear weapons and enough submarines that the second strike capability should be at least enough for 20 cities.

NATO would be insane to try and attack Russia head-on.

They are preparing for this for years. Patriot missiles bases will be all over eastern Europe at this point, and I'd be very surprised if NATO submarine technology isn't 20 years above the Russian one.

This senario will get more and more attractive, the deeper the economic crisis get.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

NATO-Chinese alliance is the right way to do it. EU doesn't need any land in Asia, right?  USA may add Kamchatka as a new state. Oh, and Sakhalin is Japanese land.


On other hand... Kamchatka state will need renaming to United States of America and Asia... Ugly. It should become a part of Alaska

[LordSlowpoke]

if you want to go full agg here, us - china will never work

eu - china is within the realm of remote plausibility though

[Helgoland]

EU - China? Sure, why not. The only two superpowers that aren't rotten to the core should get along quite nicely, especially since there are very few conflicts of interest.

[MarcAFK]

EU - China? Sure, why not. The only two superpowers that aren't rotten to the core should get along quite nicely, especially  since there are very few conflicts of interest.

.... I'm not really sure what to make of that statement.

[miauw62]

Well, it's not like Europe really HAS a core, does it?

[Sergarr]

I don't think people here understand how the nuclear warfare works.

If even one nuclear missile gets through your defences, you can say bye-bye to 10 cities. That's millions of casualties. Europe and USA are not currently willing to accept even the possibility of losing millions of people just to acquire some resources.

And don't forget, even the best anti-missile systems can achieve only a 1/3 rate of interception against a ballistic missile en route.

[Phmcw]

Those things are... secret. But you assume that you'll keep control of the launching sites long enough for the missiles to get launched, which is a bold assumption. And that all those missiles are still usable right now, which would be surprising.

If the American army don't seems to be able to understand how to crush a rebellion (probably because American culture, on some level, is much too attached to the idea of individual freedom and free will to understand tribal cultures), they are the biggest, richest army the world have ever seen, backed by the best scientists the world have, and a fuckton of bitches (our proud European nations).

Europe risk facing unrest soon, and they'd need a good distraction. Putin'd better be very, veeery carefull.

[Sheb]

Well, I for one would rather not fight Russia, and certainly wouldn't take the risk of a nuclear strike. But as long as we do not go for Moscow, I guess Russia wouldn't dare use its nukes for fear of nuclear retaliation.