• 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!

This Nuclear Chess Match Needs To Be Cancelled!

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
1,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I recall how scared so many of us were in October of 1962 when President Kennedy confronted Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev's attempted deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Kennedy let the Soviets know with a naval "quarantine" against Cuba that under no circumstances would he allow the USSR to deploy nuclear warheads that close to Washington, D.C. Had Khrushchev not backed down, it would have meant war, likely nuclear war.

Today, President Putin saw the specter of likely soon-to-be NATO Ukraine harboring NATO forces, including nuclear and anti-nuclear missiles on their border with Russia, deployed way too close to Moscow. He warned Ukraine, but Ukrainian President Zelenskyy continued stating publicly that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO, which most of the country supported. President Putin was not going to wait for Ukraine to be part of NATO when any action he took against Ukraine to prevent missile deployment so visibly close to Moscow would require NATO nations to join in defense of Ukraine, in what would likely become an all-out nuclear war. So he took the only non-nuclear option he believed could deter NATO from accepting Ukraine: neutralize Ukraine's military so that NATO would not want to deploy missiles there, as without a Ukrainian military presence, there would be no security for the NATO missiles. Tragically, the ground war Putin was resigned to employ is destroying Ukraine, because unlike Khrushchev, Zelenskyy did not back down.

There are no good guys and bad guys here, despite what media conspiracy theory and propaganda may be telling us. There are just people, and their leaders, who do not want nuclear missiles positioned so visibly close to their capitols and their home, which perhaps implies nations still lack an adequate form of quick defense against a close proximity nuclear attack. In this long drawn out game of global chess, the thought of someone actually gaining a decisive advantage is terrifying, and greatly frowned upon by the world's "arbiters". Sadly, Russia's taking of Crimea in 2014 for the sake of a Black Sea naval base contributed to the consensus in Ukraine that they needed NATO for protection. And here we are.

I do not know how today's polemic conflict-oriented leaders are going to be able to restore even a tiny degree of peace and security now. Indeed, I find myself spending more time making peace with my Maker, apprehensive that I and all those I love might suddenly soon get vaporized. Russia will not let Ukraine have a military from this point forward. And though there are many screams of terror and allegations leveled at President Putin as being a monster and to withdraw from Ukraine immediately, I can hardly hear any calls for ending the causative nuclear missile standoff between the superpowers, to turn all nuclear weapons over to U.N. security control, dismantling them, keeping only enough to ward off a pending asteroid collision.

War, as they say, is hell. My heart goes out to all the people of Ukraine and to Russian military personnel and their families, the sacrificial Pawns in this horrific attempt to retain nuclear balance. But nuclear war would end all life, and reduce our entire planet to a cinder. To think such a balance can be maintained indefinitely is sheer folly. Thankfully the U.S. and NATO have kept ground personnel out of Ukraine, as Putin's threats to launch to prevent opposing pieces from getting too close to his King cannot be reasonably considered idle.

Let us all hope that we will learn a lesson from this conflict, that any escalation by either side will be tragically deadly for the entire world, that we must do all we can, not foolishly to maintain dynamic tension with each player's pieces poised to annihilate the other, but instead simply to do what we must do very soon before it's too late: wipe all the pieces off the board, and end this terrible, terrible game of mutual assured destruction.
 
Your post above reminds me of a Tucker Carlson screed.

No one forced Putin to invade his neighbor Ukraine.

Putin's choice, Putin's War.
 
Your post above reminds me of a Tucker Carlson screed.

No one forced Putin to invade his neighbor Ukraine.

Putin's choice, Putin's War.
Likewise, I suppose no one forced President Kennedy to take military action against his neighbor Cuba in October of 1962 -- it was Kennedy's choice, so it would have been Kennedy's war had Khrushchev not backed down?

:rolleyes:

Nothing dumbs one down like ideology, left or right.

Many on the left ideologically hate Russia, because they abandoned the left's pet socialism with the fall of the USSR, in deference to a Mafia-like capitalism. Many on the right are pretending to hate Russia, simply to present Biden as weak for not doing more to help "poor" Ukraine, though Biden's hands are tied by Putin's understandable genuine threat of launching nuclear weapons should NATO nations continue interfering.

While dumb bunnies continue to play politics as usual, we move ever closer to nuclear planetary annihilation, as it's crystal clear that if the invasion dogs down too much .. or if economic sanctions cripple Russia .. Putin will most definitely launch nuclear ballistic missiles. If there's one thing we've learned about Putin in his making of threats, it's that he does not bluff.
 
Likewise, I suppose no one forced President Kennedy to take military action against his neighbor Cuba in October of 1962 -- it was Kennedy's choice, so it would have been Kennedy's war had Khrushchev not backed down?

:rolleyes:

Nothing dumbs one down like ideology, left or right.

Many on the left ideologically hate Russia, because they abandoned the left's pet socialism with the fall of the USSR, in deference to a Mafia-like capitalism. Many on the right are pretending to hate Russia, simply to present Biden as weak for not doing more to help "poor" Ukraine, though Biden's hands are tied by Putin's understandable genuine threat of launching nuclear weapons should NATO nations continue interfering.

While dumb bunnies continue to play politics as usual, we move ever closer to nuclear planetary annihilation, as it's crystal clear that if the invasion dogs down too much .. or if economic sanctions cripple Russia .. Putin will most definitely launch nuclear ballistic missiles. If there's one thing we've learned about Putin in his making of threats, it's that he does not bluff.
Put the crack pipe down and back slowly away.
 
I recall how scared so many of us were in October of 1962 when President Kennedy confronted Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev's attempted deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Kennedy let the Soviets know with a naval "quarantine" against Cuba that under no circumstances would he allow the USSR to deploy nuclear warheads that close to Washington, D.C. Had Khrushchev not backed down, it would have meant war, likely nuclear war.

Today, President Putin saw the specter of likely soon-to-be NATO Ukraine harboring NATO forces, including nuclear and anti-nuclear missiles on their border with Russia, deployed way too close to Moscow. He warned Ukraine, but Ukrainian President Zelenskyy continued stating publicly that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO, which most of the country supported. President Putin was not going to wait for Ukraine to be part of NATO when any action he took against Ukraine to prevent missile deployment so visibly close to Moscow would require NATO nations to join in defense of Ukraine, in what would likely become an all-out nuclear war. So he took the only non-nuclear option he believed could deter NATO from accepting Ukraine: neutralize Ukraine's military so that NATO would not want to deploy missiles there, as without a Ukrainian military presence, there would be no security for the NATO missiles. Tragically, the ground war Putin was resigned to employ is destroying Ukraine, because unlike Khrushchev, Zelenskyy did not back down.

There are no good guys and bad guys here, despite what media conspiracy theory and propaganda may be telling us. There are just people, and their leaders, who do not want nuclear missiles positioned so visibly close to their capitols and their home, which perhaps implies nations still lack an adequate form of quick defense against a close proximity nuclear attack. In this long drawn out game of global chess, the thought of someone actually gaining a decisive advantage is terrifying, and greatly frowned upon by the world's "arbiters". Sadly, Russia's taking of Crimea in 2014 for the sake of a Black Sea naval base contributed to the consensus in Ukraine that they needed NATO for protection. And here we are.

I do not know how today's polemic conflict-oriented leaders are going to be able to restore even a tiny degree of peace and security now. Indeed, I find myself spending more time making peace with my Maker, apprehensive that I and all those I love might suddenly soon get vaporized. Russia will not let Ukraine have a military from this point forward. And though there are many screams of terror and allegations leveled at President Putin as being a monster and to withdraw from Ukraine immediately, I can hardly hear any calls for ending the causative nuclear missile standoff between the superpowers, to turn all nuclear weapons over to U.N. security control, dismantling them, keeping only enough to ward off a pending asteroid collision.

War, as they say, is hell. My heart goes out to all the people of Ukraine and to Russian military personnel and their families, the sacrificial Pawns in this horrific attempt to retain nuclear balance. But nuclear war would end all life, and reduce our entire planet to a cinder. To think such a balance can be maintained indefinitely is sheer folly. Thankfully the U.S. and NATO have kept ground personnel out of Ukraine, as Putin's threats to launch to prevent opposing pieces from getting too close to his King cannot be reasonably considered idle.

Let us all hope that we will learn a lesson from this conflict, that any escalation by either side will be tragically deadly for the entire world, that we must do all we can, not foolishly to maintain dynamic tension with each player's pieces poised to annihilate the other, but instead simply to do what we must do very soon before it's too late: wipe all the pieces off the board, and end this terrible, terrible game of mutual assured destruction.

I share you concerns and would add that when I was younger there was a much stronger activism against the existence of nuclear weapons. There is an unhealthy indifference that has taken over and it doesn't bode well.

The jingoists must be challenged and their wreckless advocations for escalations denounced but in the frenzy surrounding this war, the tictok war in many ways, dissenting voices are lost in the cries for war.
 
Likewise, I suppose no one forced President Kennedy to take military action against his neighbor Cuba in October of 1962 -- it was Kennedy's choice, so it would have been Kennedy's war had Khrushchev not backed down?

:rolleyes:

Nothing dumbs one down like ideology, left or right.

Many on the left ideologically hate Russia, because they abandoned the left's pet socialism with the fall of the USSR, in deference to a Mafia-like capitalism. Many on the right are pretending to hate Russia, simply to present Biden as weak for not doing more to help "poor" Ukraine, though Biden's hands are tied by Putin's understandable genuine threat of launching nuclear weapons should NATO nations continue interfering.

While dumb bunnies continue to play politics as usual, we move ever closer to nuclear planetary annihilation, as it's crystal clear that if the invasion dogs down too much .. or if economic sanctions cripple Russia .. Putin will most definitely launch nuclear ballistic missiles. If there's one thing we've learned about Putin in his making of threats, it's that he does not bluff.

You have just encountered THE biggest jingoist for this war and I have been calling him out on this for years.

He is absolutely made up that this war is taking place and posts everyday with how and why it could/should be escalated. Having been pushing this for 8 years here he isn't going to let the opportunity to encourage people to race towards catastrophe pass him by
 
Rubbish. Raw garbage.

The only " rubbish" being displayed on this board is frome the war jingoists such as yourself. 6 months ago you didn't even care about the Russia/Ukraine situation and now you are here everyday advocating escalations instead of considering de escalations.

Maybe your life is that shit that annihilation is something that wouldn't bother you but for others, maybe those who are a whole lot less selfish too, it's a different story.
 
I share you concerns and would add that when I was younger there was a much stronger activism against the existence of nuclear weapons. There is an unhealthy indifference that has taken over and it doesn't bode well.

The jingoists must be challenged and their wreckless advocations for escalations denounced but in the frenzy surrounding this war, the tictok war in many ways, dissenting voices are lost in the cries for war.
I recall in 1987 when I lied down in front of a bus carrying workers to the nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. We were more active then. Time has passed. I can't help but wonder if a numbness reaction to the lingering horrific thought of being vaporized in a nuclear war has set in and partially contributed to that indifference.

Yes, the downside of this war being brought to us through social media means that most come to sympathize with those taking the brunt of it and direct their anger at the side inflicting the horrible damage. But that doesn't mean those winning are the bad guys.

Calls for more war efforts against Russia will only hasten the terrible inevitable of nuclear annihilation.

This could all end now if Zelenskyy would follow through on what he admitted to a French newspaper roughly a week ago that maybe it was a bad idea for him to insist on Ukraine being a NATO member. Considering it was his in effect nuclear threat against Russia that thereby started the invasion, he would do well to accede to all of Putin's surrender demands. The longer this war lingers, the greater the chances Putin will eventually launch.
 
Your post above reminds me of a Tucker Carlson screed.

No one forced Putin to invade his neighbor Ukraine.

Putin's choice, Putin's War.

It's Putins war and wreckless policies by the West have forced it upon him. Everyone warned about it but the policy of NATO expansion was prosecuted despiute those warnings leading to where we are now.

It's also YOUR war. A war you have been pushing for since first you came here with your anti Russian/pro military bs.

The same applies to you, Your life must be really shit if you are happy to blow up the world with everyone in it because of a personal bent
 
I recall in 1987 when I lied down in front of a bus carrying workers to the nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. We were more active then. Time has passed. I can't help but wonder if a numbness reaction to the lingering horrific thought of being vaporized in a nuclear war has set in and partially contributed to that indifference.

Yes, the downside of this war being brought to us through social media means that most come to sympathize with those taking the brunt of it and direct their anger at the side inflicting the horrible damage. But that doesn't mean those winning are the bad guys.

Calls for more war efforts against Russia will only hasten the terrible inevitable of nuclear annihilation.

This could all end now if Zelenskyy would follow through on what he admitted to a French newspaper roughly a week ago that maybe it was a bad idea for him to insist on Ukraine being a NATO member. Considering it was his in effect nuclear threat against Russia that thereby started the invasion, he would do well to accede to all of Putin's surrender demands. The longer this war lingers, the greater the chances Putin will eventually launch.

I think many years of forget all but self has also impacted on the demise of the anti Nuclear activism .

In my country a stupid party leader actually slated the antiwar movement itself as pro Putin.

So if you are a stop the war activist and living in the UK he thinks you are a pro Putin puppet but evidently if you are a Russian stop the war activist living in Moscow you are a brave hero

Good luck with this because it's the same here in this forum


The crazies have taken over
 
Likewise, I suppose no one forced President Kennedy to take military action against his neighbor Cuba in October of 1962 -- it was Kennedy's choice, so it would have been Kennedy's war had Khrushchev not backed down?

This is the Russia/Ukraine/Belarus forum

If you want to bitch about JFK, do so in the appropriate forum plz.
 
I could say the same for you

We know who he is from his posts.

A war mongering jingoist who will not be satisfied until tens of thousands of people have been killed or the war fans out to burn other countries to the ground. Do you think the thought of a nuclear exchange worries people like that?lols

The crazies have taken over this forum
 
This is the Russia/Ukraine/Belarus forum

If you want to bitch about JFK, do so in the appropriate forum plz.

The nuclear question IS part of this conflict so take your wouldbe censorship elsewhere because this is a legitimate thread
 
I recall in 1987 when I lied down in front of a bus carrying workers to the nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. We were more active then. Time has passed. I can't help but wonder if a numbness reaction to the lingering horrific thought of being vaporized in a nuclear war has set in and partially contributed to that indifference.

Yes, the downside of this war being brought to us through social media means that most come to sympathize with those taking the brunt of it and direct their anger at the side inflicting the horrible damage. But that doesn't mean those winning are the bad guys.

Calls for more war efforts against Russia will only hasten the terrible inevitable of nuclear annihilation.

This could all end now if Zelenskyy would follow through on what he admitted to a French newspaper roughly a week ago that maybe it was a bad idea for him to insist on Ukraine being a NATO member. Considering it was his in effect nuclear threat against Russia that thereby started the invasion, he would do well to accede to all of Putin's surrender demands. The longer this war lingers, the greater the chances Putin will eventually launch.

If nuclear annihilation is the inevitable result of standing up to Putin in Ukraine, then it will be the inevitable result of standing up to him in Poland... or Lithuania or Estonia or Latvia... likewise, it will be the inevitable result of standing up to him in Germany or France. Pretty much anywhere Putin chooses to rattle his nuclear saber in the future.

If that's the case, just as well to get it over with now rather than go through all of that trouble.

Regardless of where you come down on this conflict - whether you're pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian - there's clearly an aggressor here... and it's equally clear there is only one side rattling the nuclear saber. No matter how you cut it, I think we all can agree that that in itself was the most utterly irresponsible single action taken since the Second World War. Even more irresponsible than Khrushchev putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Even he didn't come out and threaten to actually use them.

Once you take that step, then you may not have actually crossed the bridge to war, but you're definitely on it. Deterrence depends on your credibility....if you make the threat and don't follow through, then your credibility is shot. If you do follow through, then the wolf comes for all of us. And it's Putin who has put himself in that corner.
 
If nuclear annihilation is the inevitable result of standing up to Putin in Ukraine, then it will be the inevitable result of standing up to him in Poland... or Lithuania or Estonia or Latvia... likewise, it will be the inevitable result of standing up to him in Germany or France. Pretty much anywhere Putin chooses to rattle his nuclear saber in the future.

If that's the case, just as well to get it over with now rather than go through all of that trouble.

Regardless of where you come down on this conflict - whether you're pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian - there's clearly an aggressor here... and it's equally clear there is only one side rattling the nuclear saber. No matter how you cut it, I think we all can agree that that in itself was the most utterly irresponsible single action taken since the Second World War. Even more irresponsible than Khrushchev putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Even he didn't come out and threaten to actually use them.

Once you take that step, then you may not have actually crossed the bridge to war, but you're definitely on it. Deterrence depends on your credibility....if you make the threat and don't follow through, then your credibility is shot. If you do follow through, then the wolf comes for all of us. And it's Putin who has put himself in that corner.

Khrushchev's decision to give Cuba missiles was a response to the US decision to put missiles in Turkey and yet you hold him as being " irresponsible " ? lol

You sound like you have nothing to live for
 
Khrushchev's decision to give Cuba missiles was a response to the US decision to put missiles in Turkey and yet you hold him as being " irresponsible " ? lol

You sound like you have nothing to live for

You're missing the point. Eisenhower never threatened to use the Jupiters in Turkey. Neither did Kennedy. And Khrushchev never threatened to use the missiles in Cuba.

They didn't have to.

And I've got plenty to live for.... but I also know that the difference between living and dying is the wink of an eye. When your number is up, your number is up. Living under tyranny or constantly cowering from a madman? Every damned day brings it own death.
 
This could all end now if Zelenskyy would follow through on what he admitted to a French newspaper roughly a week ago that maybe it was a bad idea for him to insist on Ukraine being a NATO member. Considering it was his in effect nuclear threat against Russia that thereby started the invasion, he would do well to accede to all of Putin's surrender demands. The longer this war lingers, the greater the chances Putin will eventually launch.
Previously posted:

Oh for God's sake...no one wants/wanted to 'invade' Russia. It would be a huge economic sucking vacuum. No one wanted to attack Russia post USSR. And missiles could reach it over the so-called 'barrier' of Ukraine that people say Russia's demanding. If they invade and keep Ukraine, then Ukraine IS Russia, so what's the difference? Then there are other NATO nations at that 'doorstep.' It's BS.​
Russia's lack of dominance on the world stage is an embarrassment for a man who lied and cheated to remain its leader for 20+ years and he's looking for excuses, something to leave a legacy. Too late, he's not going to be able to hide the failure.​
The NATO thing is an outdated whine, an excuse.​
 
Previously posted:

...no one wants/wanted to 'invade' Russia. ...​
The NATO thing is an outdated whine, an excuse.​

You're still going with the false equivalency of Russia having real concerns about the USG/NATO and 'wanted to invade Russia.'

And you're bothered because others haven't joined the false dominant narrative: that Russia functions in a geopolitical vacuum.
 
You're still going with the false equivalency of Russia having real concerns about the USG/NATO and 'wanted to invade Russia.'

🤷 I havent seen any 'valid' concerns from Russia that I consider legitimate.

And you're bothered because others haven't joined the false dominant narrative: that Russia functions in a geopolitical vacuum.

Erroneous, baseless 👆 assumption.
 
Back
Top Bottom