Print

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

[Il Palazzo]

Do you remember you're pitching nuclear holocaust as the alternative here?

Yes. At some point, world will have to start waging war back. And it means risking that Russia will use nukes. If you don't fight back you lose even if you are far stronger. If you do fight back against a country with nukes you risk a nuclear war.  After all the US did risk nuclear war during the Cuban crisis, they could just fold.

No, no. I agree that fighting back and treating Russian nuclear blackmail as posturing/acceptable risk is the way to go. But you are defending actually glassing them, in a global nuclear suicide.

[EuchreJack]

WELL, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT TIME FOR A HEALTHY LOCKING....

...alright, I'm unlocking the thread. Il Palazzo & Strongpoint, knock it off.

[Strongpoint]

But you are defending actually glassing them, in a global nuclear suicide.

But... I am not? I said "Also, you don't need to nuke Russia first," at the very beginning of this discussion. The offensive use of nukes is for a weaker side. Currently, Russia is a weaker side compared to any country possessing nukes. It may not be weaker in a few years but, ATM, its offensive potential is severely depleted.

[Il Palazzo]

Hey, EJ, I don't think we're fighting here. At least I don't feel like I am.

[heydude6]

A charismatic leader who will challenge you is one way to lose power.  Another one is getting chaos in your country and having it break apart into a large Somalia. Returned dissatisfied "heroes of SVO" may create a crime wave that will make gangs of 1990s (largely made from Afghanistan war veterans) look tame.

Not gonna lie, I find myself thinking back to this message, because it ended up changing some pretty fundamental beliefs I had about the war.

I do still believe that if America just stepped in at least a few months after Russia first invaded, they would have been able to kick the Ruskies out without suffering any nuclear retaliation and minimal casualties since Russia's military is so inept. The angle Putin had been pushing with his propaganda was that NATO was this all-powerful conspiracy hell bent on hurting Russia's ambitions (I wish it was, oh how I wish it was), and an American counter-invasion would have played into that. Putin would have been a loser, but that just meant he would go back to chilling in his villa. It wouldn't be something to start a nuclear war over. He wouldn't have been disgraced. An overwhelming American victory would hide the fact that the Russian military is an embarrassment and also put a damper on any future expansionist ambitions Russia may have had.

Instead, we have dragged this war out for many years. The sanctions we put on the country forced it to cannibalize its internal economy to create a war economy and now they have no choice BUT to continue the war or face the collapse as described in the quote above. It's too late to scare Putin off with a show of force. He may actually be desperate enough to use the nukes this time. Everyone was hoping that if they waited long enough, the sanctions would lead to regime change, but nobody expected it to happen to the West instead. With crucial allies now compromised, Russia has never been closer to victory.

The West thought they could win a war without fighting. Instead they got even more bloodshed.

[wobbly]

Putin would have been a loser, but that just meant he would go back to chilling in his villa. It wouldn't be something to start a nuclear war over.

I personally doubt this is true. There are very few ex-dictators in the world. If Putin loses his grip he joins the walking dead (unless he finds an ally in Africa or similar who will shelter him). I do agree that would likely not come down to nukes. There are people in his power circle who would likely remove him from life, before the launch. I doubt his corrupt buddies would sacrifice themselves in the resulting nuclear warfare.

[Strongpoint]

I do still believe that if America just stepped in at least a few months after Russia first invaded, they would have been able to kick the Ruskies out without suffering any nuclear retaliation and minimal casualties since Russia's military is so inept.

I also believe that Russia would not do anything against direct NATO intervention. If NATO's airforce would sweep in and rain death on Russian advancing columns in February 2022 there would be a lot of screaming and threats that would lead to nowhere... but thinking about such hypotheticals is a futile exercise.


Note that the negative effect of Russia abruptly going back to the "quite peace" mode can be negated by lifting sanctions and everything points out that it is what Trump intends to do. Still, stopping war won't be easy for Russia.

And same goes for Ukraine, it will be utter internal chaos if we sign anything that can't be sold as a partial victory.

[Loud Whispers]

I do still believe that if America just stepped in at least a few months after Russia first invaded, they would have been able to kick the Ruskies out without suffering any nuclear retaliation and minimal casualties since Russia's military is so inept.

I also believe that Russia would not do anything against direct NATO intervention. If NATO's airforce would sweep in and rain death on Russian advancing columns in February 2022 there would be a lot of screaming and threats that would lead to nowhere... but thinking about such hypotheticals is a futile exercise.

NATO stealth bombers coming in hot that close to Russia would indicate a significant failure of Russian nuclear deterrence; as the whole point of nuclear deterrence in the first place is to dissuade this kind of attack. It would be very hard for Russia to distinguish between a conventional attack, a nuclear first strike or the prelude to a greater attack, and that's the sort of environment that has people making miscalculations involving nuclear weapons. The Russian command could end up resorting to tactical nuclear weapons if it became obvious that NATO held no credible belief in the Russian will to use such weapons - as per the French nuclear warning shot. In NATO wargames, the involvement of tactical nuclear weapons always escalated to full nuclear war. In an ideal world Ukraine's existing security would have been guaranteed by clear security agreements after Ukraine gave up its own nuclear weapons. Ambiguity + nuclear weapons = bad cooking

[heydude6]

Putin of all people should know that his own propaganda about the danger of NATO is false. It's why he had the confidence to invade Ukraine in the first place. Because he knew we wouldn't do shit.

If America troops started ejecting Russian troops from Ukraine, Putin is not going to assume that the Americans are going to start to invade Russia. Our democratic leaders would have to declare their intentions to the public, and they would likely just say that America is enforcing the Budapest Memorandum, which is how Ukraine lost their nukes in the first place. American leaders are accountable in a way a Russian tyrant isn't.

Also the Russians have SPRN which can detect nuclear missile launches. They'll know whether America initiates a nuclear first strike, so I'm not worried about them jumping the gun because they think America is going to nuke them first.


Of course that was back then, near the start of the war. I'm not sure how things are going to fare now when Russia is already so committed.

[McTraveller]

American leaders are accountable in a way a Russian tyrant isn't.

Hello time traveller! Welcome to 2025!

[MonkeyHead]

American leaders are accountable in a way a Russian tyrant isn't.

Hello time traveller! Welcome to 2025!

After all, Trump is on record expressing admiration for more than one dictator.

[Loud Whispers]

American leaders are accountable in a way a Russian tyrant isn't.

Hello time traveller! Welcome to 2025!

"Whom does it deter?" // "Salami slicing tactics" // "Russian army maneuvres take them accidentally across the border on purpose" still very relevant today. Nuclear powers won't use nuclear weapons until they do

[heydude6]

American leaders are accountable in a way a Russian tyrant isn't.

Hello time traveller! Welcome to 2025!

Of course that was back then, near the start of the war. I'm not sure how things are going to fare now when Russia is already so committed.

Everything about that post was a reference to the past. Obviously it no longer applies to the present day.

"Whom does it deter?" // "Salami slicing tactics" // "Russian army maneuvres take them accidentally across the border on purpose" still very relevant today. Nuclear powers won't use nuclear weapons until they do

Yup. Seen enough of that in my lifetime. Russia has been slicing away at Europe for decades, and leaders like the prime minister in the show allow it to happen.

[Loud Whispers]

Yup. Seen enough of that in my lifetime. Russia has been slicing away at Europe for decades, and leaders like the prime minister in the show allow it to happen.

Also China in SCS

First well-armed fishing ships
Then reefs turned to bases
Then corvettes begin patrolling
Now they've got airbases contesting the airspace and monitoring US ships
Really dunno why Bush or Obama didn't just say "oi. Cut that out" back at the base building stage. Too concerned with global war on terror

[MonkeyHead]

Because then they say "no", carry on, and what ya gonna do? Shoot first?