[apostacy]

> The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off.

So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII to start.

Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched?

Warmongers in the Pentagon have been trying to start a "winnable" nuclear war since the 1960s. Perhaps we can minimize casualties to only a few tens of millions on our side, if we are lucky.

London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk?

Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. Even if we shoot down every one of their bombers and nuke every one of their silos, they have a fleet of nuclear submarines waiting to destroy our population centers. Only a complete psychopath would continue to escalate things at this point.

[anonAndOn]

> Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time.

We've all seen the "mighty" Russian military at this point and how pathetic it truly is. It's so gutted at this point it's sending old men to the frontlines as cannon fodder for the impending military defeat.

A last ditch effort to scare the world with a nuclear weapon would bring much of the western world into its borders to dismantle whatever military and industrial capability it has left. Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave.

There would be no WWIII. It would be the end of the Russian empire and all of the Russian oligarchs would carve up the remnants (Prigozhin, Kadyrov, etc).

ps- the oligarchs are likely to do it anyway, but they prefer to get the spoils before the West destroys the infrastructure.

[apostacy]

> Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave.

That is a fantasy. Even if we knew exactly where all of the subs were, we could never hope to destroy every single one before any of them fires off its payload.

And why would the crews of these subs willingly go to a watery grave without launching their nukes, especially if they were backed into a corner.

Do you understand that tens of millions of civilians could die if a single submarine fired missile is launched?

[supergirl]

urban combat is not working for them. but their rockets are working. just you can't conquer using rockets. you need to go door to door in a prolonged war

[rasz]

https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574767567843037184

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8Ipjn6wZE

russians burned down couple of houses and villages around Belgorod while using S-300 for destroying civilian ground targets in Kharkiv. They have tank companies with some tanks unable to reload or turn the turret. Plenty of recordings from BTRs with jammed turrets/guns. Just a couple of days ago some russian soldier uploaded a video of them shooting rpg-7s without removing shaped charge safety pins. Recruits receiving rusted thru AK47 is a classic.

Consensus is their soviet era weapons are falling apart, and on top of that they dont know how to use them.

[anonAndOn]

> but their rockets are working

... against soft targets, which just add to the list of war crimes. Shoigu et al. will spend the rest of their days behind bars should the West nab them before they fall out of windows.

[neoromantique]

>Is Ukraine worth the risk?

Ukraine isn't what's at stake here. Give in to Russia, and local conflicts will flare up all over the world, Russia escalating to Nuclear would definitely lead to WW3 one way or another, but I'd sure prefer it being World VS Russia instead of free for all that giving in to Russian agression will spark.

[blub]

First of all, it’s not Russia vs. the World, it’s Russia vs. NATO. India has literally said that Europe’s problems are not the world’s problems, China has been officially declared as an enemy of NATO. Africa has not forgotten the suffering at the hands of their former colonial masters. South America still remembers the coups they went through.

The only other countries in the world aligned with NATO are Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Secondly, conflicts are flaring around Russia because it’s weakened. This is a repeat of what happened after the fall of the USSR, with civil wars exploding in former satellites.

Thirdly, Ukraine is what’s at stake here. But NATO joined the war and now NATO’s reputation or whatever’s left of it is also at stake by own choice.

[ghostwriter]

why would an outcome in this conflict have a deciding factor in other conflicts that would be predicated on their own set of issues and would involve different kinds of people of different abilities with different agendas? This looks like an unneccessary generalization, as there's no way to tell if the same conflicts wouldn't flare up if Russia were peaceful.

[avmich]

> This looks like an unneccessary generalization

Just a straightforward projection from events of 2008-2014-2022 - Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine.

[blub]

Georgia is doing better than Ukraine and so is Crimea.

Surrender seems to be not as apocalyptic as claimed by those with an interest in getting NATO even more involved in this war.

[foverzar]

Each of these conflicts had American Military Industrial Complex money involved.

The Georgian one is especially curious in view of WikiLeaks evidence.

[type0]

It already happened: Budapest memorandum wasn't held, in the long run countries around the globe will seek to get nukes because only nuclear deterrence will work against a stronger attacker. If you allow one to blackmail others to get territories you are opening Pandoras box and others will repeat it if it shows to be a successful strategy.

[lakomen]

That is nonsense. When the US attacks other sovereign nations than it's a freedom fight that can't be televised, when someone else does it it's an evil act of aggression.

I'm tired of the double standards.

[avmich]

Yes, it's very tiring. If you're an American, use your vote to demand answers from leaders. If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level. If you're not in a democracy, work towards the ability to influence the better behavior - that is, work towards democracy.

[foverzar]

> If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level

So, has that ever worked? The US for example still has a law to invade Netherlands if even one of its military criminals is caught and brought to Hague to stand trial.

[avmich]

> So, has that ever worked?

Are you implying that democracy as a state model never worked, i.e. democratic process never brought improvements in areas like these?

[foverzar]

I am implying that countries with capable military that present themselves as "democratic" don't seem to fare substantially better in this matter.

In fact, the things that are considered ok for them to do are some of the worst examples.

Did democracy help Assange after he had uncovered the evidence of US' warcrimes? Were Bush era "no one will dare to hold the US accountable" laws repelled?

IMO, all it did is helped people "vent out" and "voice concerns" without any real and meaningful change in politics. This all lead us to a point where we see people profiting from war and taking a hypocritical moral high-ground at the same time.

Which in turn leads to that most outside observers don't even take "democratic" states seriously anymore in that matter.

[jacooper]

Ah yes, just like how the US attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and is supporting the apartheid occupation in Palestine.

But it's the US so it's OK.

[mayormcmatt]

I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.

[apostacy]

> I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.

So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.

How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII.

Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets?

Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.

[avmich]

> So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.

No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will.

Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.

[apostacy]

> No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

First of all, it does not matter to Russia if NATO uses nuclear weapons or not. If Russia is on the verge of total defeat in their own country, they will use nuclear weapons on us. They have no reason not to, and they have said that they would. So they will.

How exactly is NATO going to use conventional weapons to neutralize nuclear launch facilities buried deep under mountains and in remote parts of Siberia?

What are we going to do if a single ICBM is launched? We do not have any effective defenses against even a 1960s style ICBM, much less Russia's hypersonic ICBMs. They can be launched from anywhere on the planet, and Russia has many of them.

What if we assume that only 1/10th of them are in working order. Or even 1/1000. Many of them would still get through.

> Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.

We have no right to risk hundreds of millions of lives. This was a debate that was already had in the 1960s, and thankfully people like you did not get their way.

The millions of people who risk nuclear incineration are not acceptable losses. Any leader who would casually put us in harms way like that has no business making decisions at all.

You should educate yourself about concepts like mutually assured destruction, and the nuclear triad.

[avmich]

You're right in many points, but not quite right in general. You should take into account not only theoretical aspects, but also the specifics of the moment, for example, the values of those in power in Russia today.

The risks are there, but they are not certainties. Neither can the West totally eliminate them - technically Russia was able to wreak havoc for many years. Yet that doesn't mean the resistance is futile, does it?

[lurquer]

> The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.

Is that a quote from Napoleon? Or Hitler? I can’t remember, but I know I’ve heard it before.

[avmich]

Ever heard of Genghis Khan?

[tinus_hn]

In other words, the doormat strategy. We already tried it with Crimea, it doesn’t work. Do you think Putin would be content with half of Ukraine? Will you keep groveling as he takes more and more?

[blub]

Arming and training Ukraine and including them in NATO all but in name is being a doormat?

What about santioning Europe for its own protection to deter NordStream 2?

And what about the sanctions against Russia?

This appeasement meme is tiresome. One forced a country to give up territory, the others did everything except open warfare all in the name of a country which is neither in the EU nor NATO.

[foverzar]

Awww, it's so cute when western folk think that they behave politically flexible and benevolent.

Wake up, you people bring up this rhetoric on each collision with someone "inferior".

South America, Africa, Central and Eastern Asia, even parts of Eastern Europe - isn't it kind suspicious that most of the world the same kind of tensions with the western US-centric world and has some strong opinions on your politics.

> Do you think Putin would be content with half of Ukraine?

I wonder if you are even aware that Russia had been pushing for new security agreements before the war and after Trump had dissolved the IRNFT treaty.

[tinus_hn]

Oh I’m sure Putin pinky promised it was all just for security and he would go no further. If you fall for that crap, that’s the doormat strategy.

There is a line and to the right of the line Putin gets to have his way, and to the left he does not. That’s the border and if Putin remains behind his border he has nothing to fear. He has not been attacked, he has attacked.

Every Russian who can afford it prefers to spend as much time as possible in the west they paint as so decadent. It should be clear that whatever the rhetoric the Russians yearn for the freedom of the west and that’s dangerous for a dictator like Putin. But that is not to blame on the west, that is to blame on Putins dictatorship and is for him to deal with. Inside his borders.

If he wants a neutral zone between his territory and the west, he’s free to build it inside his borders. It’s ridiculous to think he gets to claim a sovereign nation for his own political plays.

And at the end of the line, countries are sovereign in their own borders which are defined as the part they can successfully defend. It’s pretty clear Russia has overextended its reach and now that its bluff has been called it should be happy if its tiresome nuclear threats suffice for keeping its borders as they were before they took Crimea. Perhaps if he comes to his senses quickly the west will even let Putin remain on his throne. Until he gets deposed by his own people, of course.

[foverzar]

Sorry, you've lost me at me your assumptions on how Russians tend to spend their vacations. I don't see how that it is related to war-game and security.

[avmich]

Putin has one leg in the grave - won't survive long without power, and power doesn't stay for long in many places, Russia included, with those who loses a military campaign, especially against a country perceived less capable. And Putin loses war to Ukraine alright.

With Crimea the West essentially took things as they were, not wanting to change status quo which was set so abruptly. Ukraine proved it can resist - enough to start getting western help, so the situation is different now. Taiwan take notice.

[_kbh_]

> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk?

If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world.

Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers?

Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.

[foverzar]

It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set.

> Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.

Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?

It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?

It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.

Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

[_kbh_]

> Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?

NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that.

My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth.

Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west.

I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there.

> It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?

Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?.

> It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.

> Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?

The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia.

If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.

[foverzar]

Ok, sorry I asked, should have expected such an ideologically exultant answer.

[_kbh_]

What’s your solution? Letting whoever has nukes rape, torture and genocide their way through whatever country they want?.

[foverzar]

Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse.

Otherwise it just feels like you are using random words with negative connotations just to sound impressive.

Spoiler: you don't, you sound like Putin when he starts talking of genocide of Russians in Ukraine. Ridiculous at best, disrespectful to victims of real genocides in general.

[blub]

The total economic war declared on Russia together with the arms shipments are the consequences.

Devastating response => Ukraine gets nuked again harder => more devastating response => NATO gets nuked => … => Armageddon.

[_kbh_]

The current sanctions and weapons have nothing to do with nukes, the west can go much harder on both if they wanted.

If you thinking Russia using a nuke wouldn’t cause there country to collapse internally due to the response your kidding yourself.

Russia has been threatening nukes for 8 months now and people have repeatedly crossed whatever line Russia drew in the sand.

That’s because Russia doesn’t want to nuke anyone cause they know the response will be devastating, what Russia wants to do is threaten nukes to get there way.

[confidantlake]

So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?

[foverzar]

Why do you imply that it is a some discrete "just for lulz" action, rather than a continued mutual process?

[cmurf]

This sounds familiar. Chamberlain's appeasement to tyranny.

Giving Putin what he asks for would kick the can down the road for couple years, too. Meanwhile, a genocidal antagonistic ideological social group, this Russian regime, will gladly spend the time preparing for more war. Putin's speech is a demand for a ceasefire in exchange for annexation. It's illegal on the face of it, aside from being unethical to agree to it.

There is no trusting the Russian regime, at all. No peace treaty with Russia is trustworthy. They are already signatories to agreements saying they would not do the very goddamn thing they are doing right now.

https://human-rights.cmc.edu/2022/04/14/russias-genocide-han...

https://twitter.com/GoncharenkoUa/status/1575890822590889984

>London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about)

We know this how? We can't verify it either way, but I think it would be appropriate and useful for Xi and Mobi to ask if Russia is abiding by at least this prior agreement, given the proclivity to disregard their other more important agreements.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Crimes/CrimeOfAg...

[apostacy]

>>London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about)

> We know this how?

I can't educate you on the basics of known Russian nuclear capabilities.

If you don't know about it, then you are not serious and should not be involved in this discussion.

[cmurf]

If you can't educate the basics, then you don't really know anything.

Anyone spouting appeasement has already removed themselves from any discussion.

[dnqthao]

> Is Ukraine worth the risk?

It is not only Ukraine that is at stake here. Putin will not stop at Ukraine if we give in. Next he will try with a NATO member (e.g. Baltic countries), if we repeat the same fear about ww3 and nuclear war, it is the same situation as of now (except that Russia is stronger with Ukraine occupation).

[baybal2]

> Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched?

No, but Russia can hardly kill more than 5% of NATO population even if it fires all munitions it has, to the last one, on cities.

The casualty calculations are squarely in NATO's favour.

[foverzar]

Population? What?

Since when do nukes target "population" and since when is it a success metrics of a nuclear strike?

Nukes target industrial and economic centers. Both NATO and Russia have enough nukes for at least 1% to bypass missile defense end ensure mutual industrial and economic collapse.

Most of the global population would likely survive, it's just that there won't be any NATO or Russia anymore, just random tribes of survivors.

[apostacy]

Which 5% of NATO's protectorate population do you consider an acceptable loss? Will losing the London or New York metro area be worth it? That is probably still <5% the population.

Maybe we can be ok with just having Lisbon or Munich or Lion incinerated instead?