China can wait. The Army’s focus should be Europe.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russia would only use nuclear weapons if a significant conventional force invaded their land(not happening) or if they were nuked first. A hypothetical war between Russia and America would be isolated to a small region such as Ukraine, Syria, etc. Neither side wants direct war with each other and the Russians fear nuclear war just as much as we do.

While there's a lot of sentiment in this thread that's accurate, there's also a lot that reads as straight propaganda. The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have. The more they brag about it, the less likely their boasting is accurate. Soviet Premier Khruschev bragged they were popping out nukes "like sausages" when America had over 10 nukes for every Soviet missile. This lead to a popular misconception that the Soviets were far ahead in the arms race and helped Nixon lose to JFK. JFK ironically learned how wrong his campaigning was when he became President.
 
Russia would only use nuclear weapons if a significant conventional force invaded their land(not happening) or if they were nuked first. A hypothetical war between Russia and America would be isolated to a small region such as Ukraine, Syria, etc. Neither side wants direct war with each other and the Russians fear nuclear war just as much as we do.

While there's a lot of sentiment in this thread that's accurate, there's also a lot that reads as straight propaganda. The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have. The more they brag about it, the less likely their boasting is accurate. Soviet Premier Khruschev bragged they were popping out nukes "like sausages" when America had over 10 nukes for every Soviet missile. This lead to a popular misconception that the Soviets were far ahead in the arms race and helped Nixon lose to JFK. JFK ironically learned how wrong his campaigning was when he became President.
This^^^^. The Russians can't even build a world class commercial aircraft. How about world class passenger vehicles? The Germans and Japanese did, even after being bombed into submission. Exactly what do the Russians excel at?

Scott
 
The Russians can't even build a world class commercial aircraft. How about world class passenger vehicles? The Germans and Japanese did, even after being bombed into submission. Exactly what do the Russians excel at?
Literally, the same arguments that got the US into endless global conflicts which we failed to convincingly win in the last 7 decades.

How the US propaganda continues to thrive, I will not understand.

The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have.
Do you have specific intelligence proving Russia does NOT have such weapons? Or China for that matter?
Edited to state, that "having nukes" is a pretty big Ace in the hole, I'd say. The US must believe it somewhat credible, their military force and nukes, b/c it's among the only places the US has NOT invaded in 7 decades. So, I'd say it's a pretty good "card" they have...

Also, can you prove the US has any nuclear weapons at all? How?
 
Last edited:
Russia would only use nuclear weapons if a significant conventional force invaded their land(not happening) or if they were nuked first.
There have been clear Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, as well as sabotage acts. Russia has also given a few red lines, including the west sending certain military arms to support Ukraine. I will not be surprised if Russia flexes by retaliating with a targeted tactical nuke hitting a western military base somewhere in Europe, as a show of serious force to Europe to stand down.
 
Literally, the same arguments that got the US into endless global conflicts which we failed to convincingly win in the last 7 decades.

How the US propaganda continues to thrive, I will not understand.


Do you have specific intelligence proving Russia does NOT have such weapons? Or China for that matter?

Can you prove the US has any nuclear weapons at all? How?
You're losing the plot, leadcounsel. Show me a world class Russian automobile.

And what is the point in asking whether or not Russia or China has nukes? I think it's safe to say the Russians do. And to ask for proof that the US has any nukes at all...huh? The sun is going to rise tomorrow, leadcounsel.

Scott
 
There have been clear Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, as well as sabotage acts. Russia has also given a few red lines, including the west sending certain military arms to support Ukraine. I will not be surprised if Russia flexes by retaliating with a targeted tactical nuke hitting a western military base somewhere in Europe, as a show of serious force to Europe to stand down.
You better hope not. Dont wish for it just to make your point here, leadcounsel.

Scott
 
what is the point in asking whether or not Russia or China has nukes? I think it's safe to say the Russians do. And to ask for proof that the US has any nukes at all...huh?
I was responding to the suggesting that Russia (or China) don't have nukes. We know they do. Russia is reported to have the most first class and various nukes on earth, FYI. Since I have no personal observation or knowledge of nukes anyone has, I have to take reports at face value.

Show me a world class Russian automobile.
Show me the Taliban's Naval forces. Show me Al Queda's Air Force. Show me Vietnam's 1970 satellite network.
Turns out these things, and automobiles, were irrelevant to defeating the west.

You're losing the plot,
I think I've pretty solid on what wins wars and what doesn't, and where we (the US) misplace our overconfidence and under-estimate adversaries.

Look at this propaganda piece, a popular albeit entirely wrong prediction from pre-Russian invasion in Ukraine in Feb 2022. This is the low mental horsepower and inability to accurately predict Russian actions, just 13 months ago. Not only wrong, but materially badly wrong on many key points. Russia is winning with a good strategy. It did predict the Nordstream pipeline would be "down," geez, what a coincidence. Russia appears to have had no serious negative economic impact, has shifted trade deals to other nations, etc. It is the west that is pouring resources in, crippled with less energy access, and floundering with a poor plan to defend Ukraine.

February 2022. "Why Putin won’t invade Ukraine"

"Vladimir Putin faces a Ukrainian paradox he cannot resolve by unleashing his army on the former Soviet republic. By conflating three vital Russian national-security interests into four demands, Putin created internal contradictions and conflicts that will make a military intervention in Ukraine as disastrous for Russia as the invasion of Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union....A backfiring invasion. In regard to Ukraine, Putin also knows that an armed attack or aggressive use of force will make any chance of his achieving both his priorities even less likely than landing an astronaut on the sun. He also knows that the costs to Russia and to him personally will be high and possibly unaffordable. Sanctions and further isolation will hurt. .. the West will impose sanctions more strictly and robustly than before. How much this will dent Russia’s economy or Putin’s inner circle is uncertain. But the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will almost certainly be cancelled, denting Russia’s energy sector. ...
 
There have been clear Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, as well as sabotage acts. Russia has also given a few red lines, including the west sending certain military arms to support Ukraine. I will not be surprised if Russia flexes by retaliating with a targeted tactical nuke hitting a western military base somewhere in Europe, as a show of serious force to Europe to stand down.
Your reading comprehension is really off. Drone strikes and sabotage are in no way comparable to an invasion. Russia would only use nuclear weapons in response to something that threatens their existence as a state. This is something that's publicly available in their national security policy. Nukes greatest value is as a deterrent.

Mutual Assured Destruction has prevented nuclear war for many decades now. An exchange isn't going to occur over Ukraine.
 
I was responding to the suggesting that Russia (or China) don't have nukes. We know they do. Russia is reported to have the most first class and various nukes on earth, FYI. Since I have no personal observation or knowledge of nukes anyone has, I have to take reports at face value.
The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have.


There is not a single post in this entire thread that suggests Russia or China don't have nuclear weapons. If that's your takeaway from what you quoted before, then it's time to bow out of this thread.
 
Your reading comprehension is really off. Drone strikes and sabotage are in no way comparable to an invasion. Russia would only use nuclear weapons in response to something that threatens their existence as a state. This is something that's publicly available in their national security policy. Nukes greatest value is as a deterrent.

Mutual Assured Destruction has prevented nuclear war for many decades now. An exchange isn't going to occur over Ukraine.
9/11/01
The US response was to turn the world upside down.
The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have. The more they brag about it, the less likely their boasting is accurate. Soviet Premier Khruschev bragged they were popping out nukes "like sausages" when America had over 10 nukes for every Soviet missile. This lead to a popular misconception that the Soviets were far ahead in the arms race and helped Nixon lose to JFK.
If you think my expert reading comprehension is wrong perhaps be more precise in your use of language, or even make a coherent point. You literally wrote, "The more they brag about it (their nukes), the less likely their boasting is accurate..." "America had over 10 nukes for every Soviet missile."

Giving the benefit of doubt that you mean "nuclear missile" (unclear because you said Nukes for America but missiles for USSR," and the "popular misconception that the Soviets were far ahead...". How is the reader meant to interpret this poorly drafted statement, other than "calling their bluff that they don't have nukes?" Furthermore, this was all 5 decades ago. How is it relevant to nuclear arms today?

It's difficult to make sense of any coherent points. Why downplay their nuclear power, then turn around and say you understand they are a nuclear power? Very difficult to make sense of this.

Also, why claim Russia would be unable or unwilling to retaliate from a "drone strike," when the US responded with a global war on terrorism, lasting 20 years, invading 2 nations and conducting broad global wars and forming coalitions, over "drone strikes" (4 planes, doing the equivalent of 4 drones or missiles, for clarification) that hit our infrastructure and killed 3000... In response the US killed 1 million globally...

The west proposes giving weapons to Ukraine that can strike key targets deep in Russia, FYI. That would carry consequences for the west.
 
Last edited:
Russia is a declining power and has been for decades. In contrast, China is on a winning trajectory. They correctly understand that “modern warfare” is obsolete and have instead pursued a new form of warfare.

Remove the industrial base of your adversaries and plant the seeds of discontent within the societies of your adversaries. A good example of this is the “slack off on Mondays” or “quiet quitting” messages on TicTok. Messages like these, most certainly originated by Chinese agents, are intended to undermine the productivity of the American worker.

The Chinese plan is working and they will prevail. Perhaps one of the ironies will be that they will eventually swallow up Russia just like they did America and the rest of the western world. And the Russians will hate it. Hilarious.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Russia is, afterall, a world superpower with more active and superior nuclear weapons than any nation including the US.
They are near peers. Every expert agrees. If we were to manage to defeat them, Russia specifically, it would rain nuclear weapons down on the US and we would not exist as a functional nation any longer. Russia has more, and far more advance, nuclear weapons than the US. We would be unable to stop such an attack.
So we in the US would take the greater beating in an exchange, for whatever that is worth.
Russia would only use nuclear weapons if a significant conventional force invaded their land(not happening) or if they were nuked first. A hypothetical war between Russia and America would be isolated to a small region such as Ukraine, Syria, etc. Neither side wants direct war with each other and the Russians fear nuclear war just as much as we do.

While there's a lot of sentiment in this thread that's accurate, there's also a lot that reads as straight propaganda. The Russians have been bragging about their nukes in recent years because it's the only card they have. The more they brag about it, the less likely their boasting is accurate. Soviet Premier Khruschev bragged they were popping out nukes "like sausages" when America had over 10 nukes for every Soviet missile. This lead to a popular misconception that the Soviets were far ahead in the arms race and helped Nixon lose to JFK. JFK ironically learned how wrong his campaigning was when he became President.

There was nothing about this that was hard to follow. It's only difficult for you. For a supposed expert, it should be obvious their boasting was in reference to all of the Russian talk over the last few years about their nuclear weapon delivery systems and hyper sonic missiles. It's been abundant in world news. The fact I have to specifically clarify Russia has nuclear weapons undermines any and all credibility you have in a discussion like this. For you to then fail in putting 2 and 2 together that the Russian's have a long history overselling their abilities makes for icing on the cake.

This will be my first time using the ignore feature on this forum. I really enjoy having rational discussions and friendly arguments. But when the person you're discussing with can't even follow their own comments, has no reading comprehension, spins everything said to something delusional, demands sources and doesn't source anything, there's no reason to bother.
 
There was nothing about this that was hard to follow. It's only difficult for you. For a supposed expert, it should be obvious their boasting was in reference to all of the Russian talk over the last few years about their nuclear weapon delivery systems and hyper sonic missiles. It's been abundant in world news. The fact I have to specifically clarify Russia has nuclear weapons undermines any and all credibility you have in a discussion like this. For you to then fail in putting 2 and 2 together that the Russian's have a long history overselling their abilities makes for icing on the cake.
You say they are boasting, yet apparently admit they do, in fact, have these weapons. I'm not the confused one in this discussion. You quoted me, me, as having stated they have these weapons. Now you're attempting to say I said they didn't. I truly cannot follow this. I have said they have nuclear weapons. What are you going on about?

Russian's have a long history overselling their abilities makes for icing on the cake.
Yes, Russia, and only Russia, is the only nation to "oversell" their abilities. Good grief. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. N. Korea. Lebanon. Benghazi. And on, and on, and on. The US is wonderful at grossly overselling our abilities.

But when the person you're discussing with can't even follow their own comments, has no reading comprehension, spins everything said to something delusional, demands sources and doesn't source anything, there's no reason to bother.
None of this, FYI, is close to accurate.
 
Please explain what America should have done differently with 9/11 and the Ukraine. Or even bigger picture, what should America have done differently with respect to China’s impending world rule?

Scott
Succinctly. Honest and integrity in leadership. Prioritize realistic actionable tasks that legitimately secure the USA.

The response to 9/11/01. I was 22 years younger, and naïve. We were attacked by ~19 Saudi non-state actors yet invaded Afghanistan and occupied it for 20 years, at about the 1/2 way point found Osama taking refuge in our "ally" Pakistan which did not want to turn him over and punished the informant who alerted us. OEF was a complete disaster. We also re-invaded Iraq, which I was for at the time, but it was largely predicated on - to be very generous - bad intelligence. I think the mission was noble to a degree, we were under ceasefire agreements with Iraq and they were in violation for a decade; but the execution was abysmal. We accomplished really no sustaining objectives in either nation after all those deaths, years and money. What we SHOULD have instead done, was some strategic targeted aerial strikes from afar on key leaders, over time. And given these were immigrants we should have hardened our immigration and borders against infiltration (something we STILL have not accomplished 23 years later). Instead we expanded the US police state, groping and spying on Americans.

Ukraine. Not our fight. Stay out. We agreed to 30 years ago. Monitor from afar, offer humanitarian assistance, food, medical.

Taiwan: Not our fight. Build our own chip manufacturing in the US, which would benefit us ultimately.

Modern powerful China is our own creation. We opened up trade, helped fund their infrastructure thru foreign investments and sent manufacturing jobs there so the elite class in the US could get richer and the poor get more poor. NAFTA and TAFTA have gutted the US and built up China. Our lust for cheap junk also props that up. This strategy which started in the early 1990s was a large error. China has stolen endless technology from us. China has also been allowed to infiltrate the US, learn in our universities, infiltrate government, buy land, etc. All of this has been bad strategic blunders. We start by evicting China, divorcing from needing their trade, and restoring the US as a dominant manufacturing nation.

The rest of the world, stop meddling in their internal affairs. Examples. Somalia. Lebanon. Benghazi. Beirut. Jordan. Syria. ETC. ETC. ETC.

My overarching concern is with each of these heavy-handed actions the US becomes less relevant, less dominant, and our currencies less powerful. China hasn't fired a shot in decades, and look how powerful China is. They don't need all of these hundreds of military bases around the world, bullying nations, etc. They build stuff and trade and are quite powerful.

To be clear, Russia and China are both totally evil. I am not a fan of either. But they are winning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top