• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It is vital that the U.S. destroy China within the next 20 years.

Dayton3 said:
No that would take time.

But deploying actual nuclear warheads would ramp up international tension dramatically. Far more than NONNUCLEAR ABMs would.

And haven't you claimed ABMs won't work anyway?

Why would the Chinese or Russians start a war over an ABM system that won't work?

Try some reasoning.
Click to expand...

5,000 ABM’s directly signal a desire to start a nuclear war and invalidate MAD. The obvious solution to that threat is to massively ramp up numbers of deployed warheads to guarantee a significant number of warheads still get though. On top of that, Russia would explicitly announce a counter-value strategy and that their missiles would be targeted to destroy US population and industrial centers.
 
Dayton3 said:
Afghanistan is a special case. Not to mention that the Soviets never deployed an adequate number of troops there to accomplish that. At the time it was estimated it would take a minimum of 200,000 Soviet troops and possibly up to 400,000. Estimates published in U.S. News & World Report IIRC. The Soviet force topped out at about 105,000.
Click to expand...

How many US troops do you think it would take to occupy Russia? 10 million? 20?


But you don t care. You won’t be one of those soldiers. You will bravely sit at home and send them to their deaths though.
 
Questerr said:
How many US troops do you think it would take to occupy Russia? 10 million? 20?


But you don t care. You won’t be one of those soldiers. You will bravely sit at home and send them to their deaths though.
Click to expand...

Not many at all as the Russian military will be already effectively destroyed and I expect resistance in Siberia to be minimal.
 
Dayton3 said:
Not many at all as the Russian military will be already effectively destroyed and I expect resistance in Siberia to be minimal.
Click to expand...

Siberia houses more than 33 million people, none of whom want to be American, will despise America for attacking Russia, and likely will be heavily armed by the Russian government. When American troops start dying from Novichok attacks carried out by civilians who just want US to leave, how long do you think US support for your plan will continue?

Wait, what am I asking? Your a Nazi. You’d just deploy US troops to murder any American who opposed your glorious genocide in Siberia.
 
Rich2018 said:
By what criteria ?

Maybe you should take a look at the China-US trade deficit ?



You mean the enemy that supplies the USA with cheap manufactured good built by cheap labor ?




Like steals what ?
Click to expand...


Talking to you is like talking to a brick.
 
Dayton3 said:
Like this one?

How to read this table: “Deployed strategic warheads” are those deployed on intercontinental missiles and at heavy bomber bases. “Deployed nonstrategic warheads” are those deployed on bases with operational short-range delivery systems. “Reserve/Nondeployed” warheads are those not deployed on launchers and in storage (weapons at bomber bases are considered deployed). The “military stockpile” includes active and inactive warheads that are in the custody of the military and earmarked for use by commissioned deliver vehicles. The “total inventory” includes warheads in the military stockpile as well as retired, but still intact, warheads in the queue for dismantlement. For additional guidance, see endnotes below (note: as estimates are updated, they may vary from the printed materials below).

Doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

Dayton3:

Read footnotes d, e and f and click on the link in footnote f for a full breakdown of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Note that there is a typo in one of the footnotes which says there are 2,60 warheads awaiting destruction rather than the correct number which about 2,000. You can find the proper number using the link in footnote f.

Be well and be wiser.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Dayton3 said:
Your claim that I'm a "nazi" You base it on an avatar image and my posting about war. Pretty thin reed to hang that kind of accusation on.
Click to expand...

Dude, you support militarism, reactionary politics, enforcing social conservatism via government force, and invading Russia to acquire Lebensraum. You are a Nazi.
 
Dayton3 said:
Not many at all as the Russian military will be already effectively destroyed and I expect resistance in Siberia to be minimal.
Click to expand...
Expect away in your dream world.
 
Questerr said:
Dude, you support militarism, reactionary politics, enforcing social conservatism via government force, and invading Russia to acquire Lebensraum. You are a Nazi.
Click to expand...

I've said nothing whatsoever in regards to Russia (or anywhere else) about "living space". I care little for what's on top of the Earth. I'm much more interested in what lies beneath it.
 
Questerr said:
5,000 ABM’s directly signal a desire to start a nuclear war and invalidate MAD. The obvious solution to that threat is to massively ramp up numbers of deployed warheads to guarantee a significant number of warheads still get though. On top of that, Russia would explicitly announce a counter-value strategy and that their missiles would be targeted to destroy US population and industrial centers.
Click to expand...

It would also most likely just end in Russia building a crapload of suitcase nukes and planting them all round the US.
The Russians and Chinese aren't stupid and if you build 5k abm's they just change tactics.

If I can think of a counter with zero military experience and about 5 seconds of thinking time the war college's in Russia and China who will have years while you build this stupid abm force will have plenty of cunning and devastating options.
 
The US economy is more fragile than that of Russia and China too.

A war is absolutely the last thing the USA needs.
 
Dayton3 said:
I've said nothing whatsoever in regards to Russia (or anywhere else) about "living space". I care little for what's on top of the Earth. I'm much more interested in what lies beneath it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Hitler wanted Russia’s natural resources too.
 
Rich2018 said:
The three pillars of the thousand year Reich were supposed to be:

1. German industrial power
2. Ukrainian Grain
3. Russian oil.
Click to expand...
Dayton's Reich will never begin.
 
Rich2018 said:
And he'll choke when Joe Biden slashes defense spending.
Click to expand...

That is unlikely to happen anyway. Biden an old geezer with his party having only minimal control in Congress and being very likely to lose that within 2 years from redistricting and the average mid term gains by the party that doesn't control the presidency.
 
Dayton3 said:
That is unlikely to happen anyway. Biden an old geezer with his party having only minimal control in Congress and being very likely to lose that within 2 years from redistricting and the average mid term gains by the party that doesn't control the presidency.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden has already stated his desire to slash the military budget.
 
Rich2018 said:
Joe Biden has already stated his desire to slash the military budget.
Click to expand...

It won't happen. Obama said the same thing. He increased the military budget every year he was in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom