Tactial nukes to Belarus

[humbolt]

Russia placed Iskander nuclear capable missiles in Belarus a year ago or more. In fact, Russia has moved nuclear capable delivery systems in Belarus many times over the years. And DU tanks rounds have been captured from Russian tanks in Ukraine since the war started. None of this is new.

 

[Questerr]

Escalating tensions is not in the best interest of NATO members.

Russia is escalating the tensions. We are responding. We will remove our nukes when they remove theirs.

 

[Tigerace117]

So they’ll instead establish the precedent that Russia gets to use nukes on non-nuclear powers whenever they want and NATO will do nothing.

Looks like it’s time for Russia to invade the Middle East and seize all of its oil, nuking any resistance. We won’t do anything about it right?

Any government which loses a major city and millions of its citizens over a country it doesn’t even have a formal alliance with is going to be run out of town.

Will they invade the Raj through Afghanistan next, Lord Palmerston?

 

[Questerr]

Any government which loses a major city and millions of its citizens over a country it doesn’t even have a formal alliance with is going to be run out of town.

Will they invade the Raj through Afghanistan next, Lord Palmerston?

And any nation that refuses to respond when it’s interests are threatened, for instance the interest to not normalize the use of nuclear weapons, won’t survive very long.

 

[Tigerace117]

And any nation that refuses to respond when it’s interests are threatened, for instance the interest to not normalize the use of nuclear weapons, won’t survive very long.

As previously stated, all your policies would entail is handing over control of government to the Republicans for the next fifty years.....assuming we are lucky enough to have a country left.

 

[Questerr]

As previously stated, all your policies would entail is handing over control of government to the Republicans for the next fifty years.....assuming we are lucky enough to have a country left.

How much control did Kennedy hand over to the Republicans when he showed strength over Cuba?

 

[Tigerace117]

How much control did Kennedy hand over to the Republicans when he showed strength over Cuba?

Kennedy was president during a very different time period, and one in which the Russians hadn‘t just actually detonated a nuclear weapon, showing their willingness to break the nuclear taboo.

 

[Variant]

Russia must be feeling like they are losing again.

 

[Variant]

Sounds like the US should move some tactical nukes to Estonia.

Pointless. Retaliatory nukes can be lunched from anywhere.

 

[Variant]

Why not Ukraine act as a reasoned adult about it?

About getting invaded? They seem pretty much on par as what we should expect.

 

[Variant]

Russia placed Iskander nuclear capable missiles in Belarus a year ago or more. In fact, Russia has moved nuclear capable delivery systems in Belarus many times over the years. And DU tanks rounds have been captured from Russian tanks in Ukraine since the war started. None of this is new.

Depleted Uranium shells are just heavy shells used for armor piercing.

 

[Variant]

Kennedy was president during a very different time period, and one in which the Russians hadn‘t just actually detonated a nuclear weapon, showing their willingness to break the nuclear taboo.

We should be more scared of Putin than we were during the Cuban missile crisis? Hogwash. The threat is precisely the same.

 

[Tigerace117]

We should be more scared of Putin than we were during the Cuban missile crisis? Hogwash. The threat is precisely the same.

Again, this scenario postulates that Russia would have already used a nuke....something the soviets didn’t do during the Cuban missile crisis .

 

[Questerr]

Kennedy was president during a very different time period, and one in which the Russians hadn‘t just actually detonated a nuclear weapon, showing their willingness to break the nuclear taboo.

What nuclear weapons have the Russians detonated today?

 

[Manc Skipper]

We should be more scared of Putin than we were during the Cuban missile crisis? Hogwash. The threat is precisely the same.

I remember Cuba. I was a kid shitting bricks living under a four minute warning. That was it's own kind of bullshit, but was supposedly the time between Russian nukes departure, and arrival in the UK. Four minutes to get home and die with your loved ones. Not a great time.

 

[Tigerace117]

What nuclear weapons have the Russians detonated today?

Again, we are operating off the premise that this is post detonation.

 

[humbolt]

Depleted Uranium shells are just heavy shells used for armor piercing.

Yes. Our bodies very nearly offer the same amount of radiation. It's insignificant.

 

[Questerr]

Again, we are operating off the premise that this is post detonation.

If Russia is so irrational and suicidal to actually use a nuke against Ukraine, then we absolutely need to intervene to push such an irrational actor back.

 

[lwf]

Not a chance. Biden would be run out of office on a rail if he tried. Americans do not see Ukraine as worth the lives of millions of their countrymen, especially since we have no treaty of alliance with Ukraine. That is not how MAD works.

Of course it is. It stands for "Mutually Assured Destruction" because that's what it is. Nukes are not tools for conquest. They are a defensive threat. Any country that uses them in offense is declaring war on all other nuclear armed powers.

And you must not know American politics. War is politically good for an incumbent president. Americans are afraid to change things up once war is declared. And the U.S. president doesn't require anyone's permission to declare war. He is the commander in chief. And the Pentagon is already on record with it's nuclear strategy. If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine, all of NATO, including the USA, enters the war against Russia, and Russia WILL lose that war. And if Putin is stupid enough to do it before 2024, he will be gifting Biden a campaign strategy that may as well be an 'I win' button. Bidens approval ratings would soar. Americans love wartime presidents, especially for the first few years.

But Putin knows that. This is all bluster. Putin is moving weapons around and calling it a threat. The man has nothing.

 

[Helix]

My guess is that any first nuclear strike will not be good news for whoever does it.

 

[Variant]

Again, this scenario postulates that Russia would have already used a nuke....something the soviets didn’t do during the Cuban missile crisis .

They were setting some up in Cuba, which is a bit more provocative than putting some in Belarus.

Tactical nuclear weapons have never been used in combat by anyone.

The Russians have "used" fewer than us (we've actually used a nuclear weapon), they detonated their first in 1949, the Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Variant]

I remember Cuba. I was a kid shitting bricks living under a four minute warning. That was it's own kind of bullshit, but was supposedly the time between Russian nukes departure, and arrival in the UK. Four minutes to get home and die with your loved ones. Not a great time.

We probably would never have gotten the word out in time at the time.

 

[Variant]

Again, we are operating off the premise that this is post detonation.

In that situation we will be dealing with madmen, who just committed a heinous war crime, and they will be dealing with our retaliation.

Once nukes get launched the cat doesn't stay in the bag, that's why nobody does it. That's how our wargames play out, that's how theirs do, we all know the consequences.

Russia is betting we would back down in such a scenario? Madness.

 

[Tigerace117]

In that situation we will be dealing with madmen, who just committed a heinous war crime, and they will be dealing with our retaliation.

Once nukes get launched the cat doesn't stay in the bag, that's why nobody does it. That's how our wargames play out, that's how theirs do, we all know the consequences.

Russia is betting we would back down in such a scenario? Madness.

No, what’s madness is pretending the US would be willing to give up millions of lives over a third party country which we have no treaty of alliance with.

 

[Tigerace117]

Of course it is. It stands for "Mutually Assured Destruction" because that's what it is. Nukes are not tools for conquest. They are a defensive threat. Any country that uses them in offense is declaring war on all other nuclear armed powers.

And you must not know American politics. War is politically good for an incumbent president. Americans are afraid to change things up once war is declared. And the U.S. president doesn't require anyone's permission to declare war. He is the commander in chief. And the Pentagon is already on record with it's nuclear strategy. If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine, all of NATO, including the USA, enters the war against Russia, and Russia WILL lose that war. And if Putin is stupid enough to do it before 2024, he will be gifting Biden a campaign strategy that may as well be an 'I win' button. Bidens approval ratings would soar. Americans love wartime presidents, especially for the first few years.

But Putin knows that. This is all bluster. Putin is moving weapons around and calling it a threat. The man has nothing.

Lol no, there is no “winning” when two countries with thousands of nuclear warheads go to war, General Power.

War is “good for an incumbent” when “freedom bombs” are raining down on countries which have no ability to hurt the United States whatsoever. Russia could obliterate the U.S. entirely, so that doesn’t apply.

Lol oh really? The attack ads write themselves.

“Joe Biden wants to destroy America for his globalist masters by attacking a nuclear power!”

“The Democrats just got millions of Americans killed and want to kill more!”

“Democrats willing to sacrifice America to in hopes of “saving” Ukraine!”

The Democratic Party would be lucky to get a member elected dog catcher for the next couple decades.