- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Messages
- 37,527
- Reaction score
- 29,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Trifecta. Worst idea of the day, year and century.
Technically, it's the worst idea in two centuries.
Trifecta. Worst idea of the day, year and century.
I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?
I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?
Your poll didn't include Of Course Not. Nuclear weapons are widespread poison for years and years. No one should consider them.The excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link), (which I will send a PDF copy of upon DM request) makes a case for a vital nuclear option in the Ukraine War (special military option) and indeed illustrates it. Ukraine is not a perfect country by any means but it is certainly better than Russia as controlled by Putin. Our response should be effective, and not limited to the "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist (link to Safire article)
He wrote those words relating to similar Soviet aggression against Poland, now playing out in similar manner as the unprovoked attack by Putin against Ukraine. Conventional defense, as we have seen in Mariopol, is allowing atrocities. As Luttwak pointed out, “the European system of peaceful construction needs is a preclusive method of protection, not ultimate victory after much destruction and millions of deaths.” P. 14 of Luttwak article. As the article further points out “If NATO could not hold the front by non-nuclear combat, it would warn the Soviet Union that (small-yield) nuclear weapons would be used to strike at the invading Soviet forces. And then it would strike with such weapons if the warning went unheeded.”
With regard to actual casualties of such an approach “(t)he entire "software" of discipline, of morale, of unit cohesion and esprit de corps and all the practices and habits that sustain the authority of sergeants, officers, and political commissars, are simply not built to withstand such terror as nuclear weapons would cause-even if at the end of the day it were to be discovered that the dead on all sides were surprisingly few.
One of the reasons that opposition to nuclear methodology is almost entirely on the liberal side of the political spectrum is that the Soviet Union and now the Russians have stoked fear of full-scale nuclear winter. The Russians are, from a practical standpoint, the only logical aggressors. The West is the only logical user of defensive nuclear weapons. That is why I favor the “nuclear option” being alive and well. We do not need to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian.
CURTIS LEMAY, COME HOME! ALL IS FORGIVEN!
It’s the Thomas S Power School of Conflict Resolution.
“If there are two Americans and one Russian left at the end, we win!”
NYC is probably not at the top of the list. Wyoming, Nebraska and North Dakota are.
I know next to nothing about it but from what I’ve read a first strike would overwhelmingly be aimed at our ICBM silos - all in the Great Plains - submarine pens and bomber bases. Population centers are further down the list.NYC, Galveston, Boston, San Diego, LA, and Portland are very much on the top of this list.
I wish. But I'll believe it when I see it. We'll have more "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist (link to Safire article) in an attack on Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. There will be some mealy-mouth reasoning.When and if they set a pinky toe in a NATO nation.
Which Russia won’t.
It’s not obvious at all, unless you are believing Ukranian propaganda uncritically. 24 gorillian russians dead, and their entire Air Force shot down, blah blah. The Russians have greatly destroyed the capacity of the Ukranian forces.The fact is, it is now absolutely obvious that we would shred any Russian forces that attacked any NATO nation. The Russian army is a paper tiger.
No threat of nukes is required.
It’s not obvious at all,
He’s calling for a NATO first strike. The guy is a nut any way you slice it.
If the USSR were overrunning Europe. Did we really want to relive Normandy?
With his plan we wouldn’t have the ability to relive Normandy, because we’d be a radioactive cinder.
Small tactical weapons wouldn’t do that. Then there was the neutron bomb, but leftists went nuts over that one.
No, the Russian counter strike would.
You realize the argument in that article exists as current Russian military doctrine, right?
You realize that howling “but Russia” doesn’t excuse a NATO first strike, nor would it change the fact that doing so would have obliterated us....right?
The point was if it’s such a crazy idea, why would the Russians incorporate it into their war planning? Don’t you think they considered this? Also, what would your plan have been? Just give Europe to the USSR and accept that we fought WWII for nothing?
Well gee, for starters I wouldn’t launch a nuclear first strike. That’s the most obvious answer.
And btw, we fought World War Two to crush Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, not to establish a sphere of influence.
So Europe should just surrender then, correct?
We fought WWII to help rid Europe and the world of fascism. We didn’t destroy one totalitarian state just to hand it to another one. Remember, Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan after they attacked us. The idea that we could just sit twiddling our thumbs across a giant moat while the world burned ended on December 7, 1941. After that day we figured out that a free Europe is a vital strategic interest of the United States.
Well there you go: New York City "Very Liberals" are in the bag for launching nukes.
What about pikes with heads on them? Is that on the table?