Why Won't The US Fight Russia?

#1

VolunteerHillbilly

Spike Drinks, Not Trees
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
40,749
Likes
15,127
#1
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and TVOLS
#3
#3
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.

They only need a handful of Nukes to bring this country to its knees. There’s no stopping them without ensuring our destruction.
 
#9
#9
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.
You are crazy. Minsk II would have been the bloodless and more diplomatic solution. But instead, you want Murica to whip out the nuclear d*ck and risk the annihilation of mankind. We have to come to the realization that we wasted our blessing and we now live in a multipolar world. The days of unconditional terms and dishonest negotiations are coming to an end. Now we are going to be forced to be honest brokers and be prepared to make concessions.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal.
Meh, maybe...

Starve nuclear weapons to death with a tritium freeze | SIPRI

While tritium is necessary for boosted nuclear weapons to function, it is not a nuclear material as defined by international statute. It is a radioactive gas and decays with a half-life of 12.3 years. That means that half of this material disappears every 12.3 years.

Now from what I understand, the Clinton Adminstration made a move that limited tritium production or something (going off of memory so some one I'm sure will correct me). But what that means is that these weapons need to have tritium recycled or replaced every 12 or 13 years in order for our nukes to be effective. But this program has apparently been hampered or stopped since the 1990s.
 
#11
#11
The original OP is close to my tax paying opinion so I give him/her a like. Having said that depending on your age the United States use to stopped the spread of communism.Oh wait
 
#12
#12
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.
Lol wut. Just because ours are better doesnt mean theirs dont work. Millions upon millions of Americans dead.

Nuclear winter. Radiated cities.
 
#13
#13
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.
Oh good idea! Let's just wait a week so we can show our kids how to correctly shelter under their desk at school.
 
#14
#14
The original OP is close to my tax paying opinion so I give him/her a like. Having said that depending on your age the United States use to stopped the spread of communism.Oh wait
We used to stop the spread… except in Cuba, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, East Germany, China and on and on. We had to pick our spots during the Cold War just like now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#17
#17
The easy answer is that they have nukes. Well. So do we and ours are probably in far better shape than their nuclear arsenal. I feel ashamed of this country right now. We encourage people to support a hopeless resistance in the name of principles that we claim to hold dear and we won't support them with our might. Unless the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq depleted our own arsenal to the point that we can't wage war, I feel like we should be able to beat the hell out the Russian army. After WWII we said never again. It's happening again and we're really not doing anything. I don't get it.
The made for TV movie "The Day After", which originally aired on ABC on November 20, 1983, is available on YouTube. I recommend it, if you want some understanding of what a nuclear war might look like. It starred Jason Robards, John Lithgow, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg and Amy Madigan.

Being from 1983, the premise for the conflict is, of course, badly outdated now. It postulates a war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries - the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Bulgaria, which escalates into an exchange of nuclear missile attacks, following the Soviet Union's military strike response in West Berlin to NATO's Able Archer 83 exercise... which really did take place in November of 1983. So, the movie was actually very plausible for its time. The Day After is still the highest rated made-for-television movie of all time.
 
#18
#18
The made for TV movie "The Day After", which originally aired on ABC on November 20, 1983, is available on YouTube. I recommend it, if you want some understanding of what a nuclear war might look like. It starred Jason Robards, John Lithgow, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg and Amy Madigan.

Being from 1983, the premise for the conflict is, of course, badly outdated now. It postulates a war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries - the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Bulgaria, which escalates into an exchange of nuclear missile attacks, following the Soviet Union's military strike response in West Berlin to NATO's Able Archer 83 exercise... which really did take place in November of 1983. So, the movie was actually very plausible for its time. The Day After is still the highest rated made-for-television movie of all time.
If I remember correctly, weren't people thinking it was an actual nuclear attack going on when that came on television? Sort of like Orson Welles' War of the Worlds?
 
#20
#20
If I remember correctly, weren't people thinking it was an actual nuclear attack going on when that came on television? Sort of like Orson Welles' War of the Worlds?
I'm not sure of that... but one of my favorite stories from that Cold War period of 1983, was when an 11 year old American girl sent a letter to Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov where she told him that she was afraid that there would be a nuclear war... and somehow he actually received it. He wrote her back and invited her and her family to Moscow.... just because he wanted to alleviate her concerns. That little girl became a huge star and did Johnny Carson and Letterman. For the life of me I can't remember her name.

Anyway, can you imagine such a thing happening now? In the cynical world we live in now, that sounds corny and ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
The made for TV movie "The Day After", which originally aired on ABC on November 20, 1983, is available on YouTube. I recommend it, if you want some understanding of what a nuclear war might look like. It starred Jason Robards, John Lithgow, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg and Amy Madigan.

Being from 1983, the premise for the conflict is, of course, badly outdated now. It postulates a war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries - the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Bulgaria, which escalates into an exchange of nuclear missile attacks, following the Soviet Union's military strike response in West Berlin to NATO's Able Archer 83 exercise... which really did take place in November of 1983. So, the movie was actually very plausible for its time. The Day After is still the highest rated made-for-television movie of all time.

Per Wikipedia:

U.S. President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983.[29] He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed",[30][26] and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war".[31] The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him: "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."[citation needed] In 1987, Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which resulted in the banning and reducing of their nuclear arsenal. In Reagan's memoirs, he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.[26] Reagan supposedly later sent Meyer a telegram after the summit, saying: "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did."[10] During an interview in 2010, Meyer said that this telegram was a myth, and that the sentiment stemmed from a friend's letter to Meyer; he suggested the story had origins in editing notes received from the White House during the production, which "may have been a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me, him being an old Hollywood guy."[26]

The film also had impact outside the U.S. In 1987, during the era of Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms, the film was shown on Soviet television. Four years earlier, Georgia Rep. Elliott Levitas and 91 co-sponsors introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives "[expressing] the sense of the Congress that the American Broadcasting Company, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency should work to have the television movie The Day After aired to the Soviet public."[32]
 
#22
#22
You are crazy. Minsk II would have been the bloodless and more diplomatic solution. But instead, you want Murica to whip out the nuclear d*ck and risk the annihilation of mankind. We have to come to the realization that we wasted our blessing and we now live in a multipolar world. The days of unconditional terms and dishonest negotiations are coming to an end. Now we are going to forced to be honest brokers and be prepared to make concessions.

Some come to the board with various levels of understanding. We shouldn't be surprised when someone breaks out with a Lindsay Graham level solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#23
#23
I think it’s a fallcy to assume that Russia will use nukes if we engage them in conventional warfare. Mutual assured destruction still exists. That was the point of mentioning the US nuclear arsenal. France and the UK also have nukes, so I doubt the Russians drop anything on Western Europe either. Even if we won’t deploy ground troops, I think we should be using drones and other guided weapons.
 
#24
#24
The made for TV movie "The Day After", which originally aired on ABC on November 20, 1983, is available on YouTube. I recommend it, if you want some understanding of what a nuclear war might look like. It starred Jason Robards, John Lithgow, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg and Amy Madigan.

Being from 1983, the premise for the conflict is, of course, badly outdated now. It postulates a war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries - the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Bulgaria, which escalates into an exchange of nuclear missile attacks, following the Soviet Union's military strike response in West Berlin to NATO's Able Archer 83 exercise... which really did take place in November of 1983. So, the movie was actually very plausible for its time. The Day After is still the highest rated made-for-television movie of all time.
I saw it on TV when it was originally broadcast and I am old enough to have done the drills in elementary school and can still remember the old civil defense shelter signs in various places downtown Nashville. So far, we’re the only country to use nuclear weapons. I doubt it happens again until someone in the middle east gets their hands on one..
 
#25
#25
I don't want the US to fight anyone anymore. Politicians (both sides) don't take care of our troops when it is over. They get us in to the messes and make it political later.

I have always said mandate politicians use the VA healthcare system and no preferential treatment.
Our vets will be crappin' on gold toilets and bitchin' about the marble floors being cold in no time.
 

VN Store



Back
Top