• 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!

Nuclear war

would Putin resort to nuclear war?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 53.6%

  • No

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • Total voters
    28
"Neutral buffer-state" is code for "I get to invade you and violate your sovereignty if you do something i don't like." That's not peacefulness, that's aggression. By that same idiotic logic, does Ukraine get to invade a neighboring Russian o'blast to create a "buffer" between them and the aggressive Russian state? Cause they clearly have way more of a ****ing case. Russia is not entitled to a "neutral buffer-state" and if they wanted friendlier Eastern European neighbors they should have tried to not ****ing piss off all of them post-Soviet breakup.

Ironically it is exactly this type of aggression that is actually pushing Ukraine more towards the West. This is a classic example of toxic abusive ex achieving the opposite effect of what s/he intended.

Stop defending the Kanye in this relationship.
 
Last edited:
Considering my track record on this conflict so far, I am not going to answer that question.
 
Lursa said:
Havent read the latest posts...anyone speculating on the use of EMPs?

Havent heard or read anything in the media.
Click to expand...

An EMP strike is no different than a ground strike, in that it justifies a return strike.
 
Hamish Howl said:
An EMP strike is no different than a ground strike, in that it justifies a return strike.
Click to expand...

Its impacts are very different; esp. initially, there's less loss of life. So IMO that means it might have lower bar to implementing.
 
Lursa said:
Its impacts are very different; esp. initially, there's less loss of life. So IMO that means it might have lower bar to implementing.
Click to expand...

Within a week, you'ld have at least a few million dead. A month later, more than half would be dead.

The military isn't blind to this.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Within a week, you'ld have at least a few million dead. A month later, more than half would be dead.

The military isn't blind to this.
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat familiar. Altho I think your first-week total is way high for Ukraine. Or even America. IMO that figure's more likely for the month period. What info are you basing your numbers on?

And altho I only touched on lives, it's much much less damaging to infrastructure. That's another one of the considerations which, IMO, lower the barrier to implementing.
 
Lursa said:
I'm somewhat familiar. Altho I think your first-week total is way high for Ukraine. Or even America. IMO that figure's more likely for the month period. What info are you basing your numbers on?

And altho I only touched on lives, it's much much less damaging to infrastructure. That's another one of the considerations which, IMO, lower the barrier to implementing.
Click to expand...

I'm basing it on the idea that a truly effective EMP weapon has to be detonated in the extreme upper atmosphere, so that the energy from the explosion is mostly expressed electromagnetically instead of as blast and thermal energy.

That being the case, you take out a HUGE area of electrical infrastructure.
 
Credence said:
I did not answer the poll. The reason NATO / US did not establish a no fly zone is because they would have to enforce it by shooting down a Russian plane. Should that happen and we fired the first shot, you damn right Putin would use nuclear weapons and NY would be the first target. I understand Zelensky wants a no fly zone established to protect his citizens however Biden and the other countries of NATO have to protect their citizens too MOO

On a side note; is the board slow or is it me?
Click to expand...
Zelensky doesn’t want to protect his citizens. If that’s what he wanted he would’ve agreed to Russian terms and signed an armistice already
 
Hamish Howl said:
I'm basing it on the idea that a truly effective EMP weapon has to be detonated in the extreme upper atmosphere, so that the energy from the explosion is mostly expressed electromagnetically instead of as blast and thermal energy.

That being the case, you take out a HUGE area of electrical infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Totally on the same page there.

I just dont believe that would lead to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians or certainly not Americans in a week.

There's still food and water available and the desperation and slaughter wouldnt really start that fast. People would be confused and waiting to see what happened, if 'everything would be turned back on again'.
 
Mircea said:
He wouldn't be ruling over a "smoking crater" but then you'd never know since you and 300+ Million Americans will be dead in less than 6 months, and only 2 or 3 450-750 kt warheads detonated 85 miles above the surface would be needed to do that.
Click to expand...
So you think Putin could nuke the US and Russia would suffer no retaliation whatsoever? That seems unrealistic.
 
Mircea said:
Um, no, the other No-Fly Zone is the future No-Fly Zone the US intends to establish when it gains control of the eastern Russian republics.
Click to expand...
No. There are no "eastern Russian republics"
Mircea said:
The US wants the eastern Russian republics.
Click to expand...
Again, there are no "eastern Russian republics". There are some ex-Soviet SSRs, which are now independent countries, are not part of NATO, and NATO will never enforce any "no-fly zone" over them - nor will the US.
 
StillBallin75 said:
"Neutral buffer-state" is code for "I get to invade you and violate your sovereignty if you do something i don't like." That's not peacefulness, that's aggression. By that same idiotic logic, does Ukraine get to invade a neighboring Russian o'blast to create a "buffer" between them and the aggressive Russian state? Cause they clearly have way more of a ****ing case. Russia is not entitled to a "neutral buffer-state" and if they wanted friendlier Eastern European neighbors they should have tried to not ****ing piss off all of them post-Soviet breakup.

Ironically it is exactly this type of aggression that is actually pushing Ukraine more towards the West. This is a classic example of toxic abusive ex achieving the opposite effect of what s/he intended.

Stop defending the Kanye in this relationship.
Click to expand...


What do you think the US would do to Mexico if it decided to let China put a large military base 20 miles from the US border ?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
What do you think the US would do to Mexico if it decided to let China put a large military base 20 miles from the US border ?
Click to expand...

I dunno about WOULD DO, but what they SHOULD DO is NOT invade Mexico. That's just ****ing stupid if you want to degrade the military for no reason. Also a sound policy would have been to not piss off Mexico to the point where they'd want to be a military ally of China.
 
Tlrmln said:
NATO has never threatened Russia,....
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, they have.

The Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955 to counter NATO aggression.

It was the US and Britain who pressured Germany to halt payments of war reparations legally owed to Russia.

Russia did not start WW III, rather they engaged in a peaceful protest by blocking access to Berlin.

NATO's deployment of Jupiter IRBMs to Italy and Turkey was a hostile aggressive act. The Russians didn't start WW III, instead they deployed IRBMs to Cuba to negate the strategic advantage the US/NATO gained thanks to the bungling lame-brain JFK.

I could go on and on, but I doubt you're interested in truth.

Tlrmln said:
and Russia is invading a sovereign nation for no good reason.
Click to expand...

The Russians learned from the US who repeatedly time and time again invaded sovereign nations for no good reason
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Zelensky doesn’t want to protect his citizens. If that’s what he wanted he would’ve agreed to Russian terms and signed an armistice already
Click to expand...
The mother did not want to protect her children. If she did she would have let the rapist finish his assault.
 
Lursa said:
Its impacts are very different; esp. initially, there's less loss of life.
Click to expand...
6 months after a late September/early October EMP strike, 300+ Million Americans will have died of dehydration, starvation, famine-related illnesses and diseases, hypothermia, disease, illness, accident, injury, misadventure, cannibalism, violence or their own hand.

And there ain't a damn thing anyone on this Earth can do about it.

In stark contrast, an EMP strike in eastern Africa might leave 3 or 4 people dead. After a year or so.
 
molten_dragon said:
So you think Putin could nuke the US and Russia would suffer no retaliation whatsoever?
Click to expand...
If you had been with me as a NATO observer on Druzba '86 to watch Soviets conduct nuclear weapons field operations, you'd know Russia has a no first use policy. They still do. Or you could just read about Russian nuclear weapons policy.

In contrast, the US does not have a no first-use policy.

I won't comment on the efficacy of Russian anti-missile defenses, but they'd fare far better than the US.
 
Mircea said:
If you had been with me as a NATO observer on Druzba '86 to watch Soviets conduct nuclear weapons field operations, you'd know Russia has a no first use policy. They still do. Or you could just read about Russian nuclear weapons policy.

In contrast, the US does not have a no first-use policy.

I won't comment on the efficacy of Russian anti-missile defenses, but they'd fare far better than the US.
Click to expand...
Er....

www.defensenews.com

New Russian policy allows use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear strike

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday endorsed Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use atomic weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Only China and India maintain NFU pledges.
 
I dont think so....but when destruction of life as we know it is on the line....I wouldn't make any rash decisions and I would not involve NATO in Ukraine. That will just prove Putin was correct in his concerns.
 
1646788871900.png
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Zelensky doesn’t want to protect his citizens. If that’s what he wanted he would’ve agreed to Russian terms and signed an armistice already
Click to expand...
You give up very easily. Bullies love that.
Ukraine will come out of this with their sovereignty intact and Putin crippled or worse.
Mark my words.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
I dont think so....but when destruction of life as we know it is on the line....I wouldn't make any rash decisions and I would not involve NATO in Ukraine. That will just prove Putin was correct in his concerns.
Click to expand...
Not NATO per se but each NATO country is free to do what they see fit. And what looks fit for Poland, for example, might look very different to Britain, who are well insulated from Russia or the USA, for who Russia is just a distant boogey-man with no teeth. Eastern countries have recent memories that tell them Russia must be resisted.
I wouldn't blame Poland at all if those Migs came with trained pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom