Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,502
#4,502
Grand Vol said:
Which part of the year 1958 did you miss out on?

I write the wrong year on checks from time to time, but that's a stretch even for me.
Click to expand...

There are still people that believe we can win a nuclear first strike. For example, The Council on Foreign Relations...

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy | Foreign Affairs

This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.
Click to expand...
 
#4,504
#4,504
Rasputin_Vol said:
There are still people that believe we can win a nuclear first strike. For example, The Council on Foreign Relations...

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy | Foreign Affairs
Click to expand...

Again, this does not equate to intent. Further, a first strike as an option does not mean it's being intended either. Granted, it means that it could be intended in the future if geopolitical situations would seem to warrant it, in the mindset of whichever particular nation. But it does not mean it is currently or will ever be intended.

Furthermore, and you might not know it because you think America is the only country on Earth that is evil, but every nuclear nation has a first strike plan and option. Any government not contemplating such things would be derelict in its duty to its people and borders.
 
#4,505
#4,505
Rasputin_Vol said:
There are still people that believe we can win a nuclear first strike. For example, The Council on Foreign Relations...

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy | Foreign Affairs
Click to expand...

And they totally miss the point that the Russians believe in the nuclear triad just like we do. They have subs, bombers and ICBMs that any one of the three will survive a first strike.

It's called MAD. And it keeps the balance. And you still have yet to show any intent, INTENT on the part of the US that shows we are even remotely considering a strike or even preparing for same.

Just stop, your ignorance and blatant fact picking and twisting is not even amusing anymore.
 
#4,506
#4,506
Grand Vol said:
And they totally miss the point that the Russians believe in the nuclear triad just like we do. They have subs, bombers and ICBMs that any one of the three will survive a first strike.

It's called MAD. And it keeps the balance. And you still have yet to show any intent, INTENT on the part of the US that shows we are even remotely considering a strike or even preparing for same.

Just stop, your ignorance and blatant fact picking and twisting is not even amusing anymore.
Click to expand...



Sad thing is all of this becomes moot once Iran gets a nuke..
 
#4,507
#4,507
volprof said:
Again, this does not equate to intent. Further, a first strike as an option does not mean it's being intended either. Granted, it means that it could be intended in the future if geopolitical situations would seem to warrant it, in the mindset of whichever particular nation. But it does not mean it is currently or will ever be intended.

Furthermore, and you might not know it because you think America is the only country on Earth that is evil, but every nuclear nation has a first strike plan and option. Any government not contemplating such things would be derelict in its duty to its people and borders.
Click to expand...

Actually China has a no first use policy.
 
#4,508
#4,508
When Lithuania has a tougher policy against Russian aggression than American, Europe, and NATO do...

"It is the fact that Russia is in a war state against Ukraine. That means it is in a state of war against a country which would like to be closely integrated with the EU. Practically Russia is in a state of war against Europe. That means we need to help Ukraine to ... defend its territory and its people and to help militarily, especially with the military materials to help Ukraine to defend itself because today Ukraine is fighting a war on behalf of all Europe."
 
#4,510
#4,510
red butler said:
Actually China has a no first use policy.
Click to expand...

You believe everything China says?

Which, now that I think of it, you may be right. China probably couldn't get a decent first strike attack off the ground even if it wanted. At least not at the moment.

So Russia and the US then.
 
#4,511
#4,511
volprof said:
You believe everything China says?

Which, now that I think of it, you may be right. China probably couldn't get a decent first strike attack off the ground even if it wanted. At least not at the moment.

So Russia and the US then.
Click to expand...

No need to worry about China. Wha o would they sell their crap to if they nuked us? China is all about the $$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,512
#4,512
Burhead said:
When Lithuania has a tougher policy against Russian aggression than American, Europe, and NATO do...

"It is the fact that Russia is in a war state against Ukraine. That means it is in a state of war against a country which would like to be closely integrated with the EU. Practically Russia is in a state of war against Europe. That means we need to help Ukraine to ... defend its territory and its people and to help militarily, especially with the military materials to help Ukraine to defend itself because today Ukraine is fighting a war on behalf of all Europe."
Click to expand...
Good... then let Europe fight that war. Why are we there sending Kerry, Nuland and military advisors?
 
#4,515
#4,515
Looks like the city of Mariupol may be bracing itself within the next few days for the largest-scale fighting we've seen thus far.
 
#4,516
#4,516
hog88 said:
No need to worry about China. Wha o would they sell their crap to if they nuked us? China is all about the $$$.
Click to expand...

China should worry us more because they are starting all kinds of trouble in the South China Sea. Vietnam, Japan and The Philippines are all having disputes with China trying to expand into various islands throughout the region. While I think the US is provoking the situation with Russia in the Ukraine, it appears to me right now that China is the instigator in the Far East.
 
#4,517
#4,517
Rasputin_Vol said:
China should worry us more because they are starting all kinds of trouble in the South China Sea. Vietnam, Japan and The Philippines are all having disputes with China trying to expand into various islands throughout the region. While I think the US is provoking the situation with Russia in the Ukraine, it appears to me right now that China is the instigator in the Far East.
Click to expand...

There just taking advantage of a week indecisive POTUS. Much the same as Putin is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,518
#4,518
hog88 said:
There just taking advantage of a week indecisive POTUS. Much the same as Putin is doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Russia and China didn't get into shooting spats, and sometimes even worse, with any of these nations and others before Obama.

You take around a thousand years of these nations' histories (the China/Vietnam animosity goes back at least a thousand years or so; they fought a war that killed at least 100,000 people just as recently as the late 60s/early 70s) and lump it all into the Obama presidency.

No, he's not a good president, but come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,520
#4,520
volprof said:
Yes, because Russia and China didn't get into shooting spats, and sometimes even worse, with any of these nations and others before Obama.

You take around a thousand years of these nations' histories (the China/Vietnam animosity goes back at least a thousand years or so; they fought a war that killed at least 100,000 people just as recently as the late 60s/early 70s) and lump it all into the Obama presidency.

No, he's not a good president, but come on.
Click to expand...

You are correct Prof, some if this has been going on for centuries. But why now after a few decades of stability start rattling sabers?

Because they can, they can and will not be challenged. When America is weak, others will take advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,522
#4,522
hog88 said:
You are correct Prof, some if this has been going on for centuries. But why now after a few decades of stability start rattling sabers?

Because they can, they can and will not be challenged. When America is weak, others will take advantage.
Click to expand...

Perception is everything..
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 0
#4,524
#4,524
volprof said:
Absolutely not.

And I've been looking around. Seems that you, your fascist buddy, and RT posters are the only ones spouting nuclear rhetoric regarding this crisis.
Click to expand...


If my memory is correct, that female Ukrainian presidential candidate had made threats about nukes. And I can't remember if Victoria Nuland made a nuke remark in her f*?k Europe conversation.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top