• 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!

Trump’s ‘5 percent down’ plan for Europe (2 Viewers)

No-one else having nukes and no-one else willing to use nukes are the same thing in reality.


Once on country uses nukes on another country with nukes, the chance of both using nukes goes up dramatically
 
The UK is about to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next few years and no amount of shouting by Trump is going to make us spend 5%.

He can shove his 5% suggestion.
The UK government sets UK spending, not Trump.
 
Says who ?

It's never happened so there's no evidence of that, just supposition.


Says logic

If my country was nuked and had nukes, I would expect that we would nuke the country that nuked us in retaliation
 
You don't get it. The only thing that has ever stopped Russia from using nukes is the certainty that that would be the end of them. That is still the same as always. Russia will be totally annihilated if they use nukes on us or any other country. It is suicide.
The Pentagon told Putin that if he used as much as one tactical nuke in Ukraine US and NATO armed forces would sink his entire Black Sea Fleet and kill every last Russian soldier in Ukraine. The Pentagon said it would not respond in kind, meaning not go nuclear in return. That and instead the US would send the Russian military back to World War I if that.



The US and its NATO allies would destroy Russian forces and sink the Black Sea fleet if Vladimir Putin decides to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, former CIA Director David Petraeus has predicted. The retired four-star general spelled out in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday what he believed would happen if the Kremlin warmonger used nuclear weapons. “We would respond by leading a NATO — a collective — effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” he said.


There's no need or intention to respond in kind ,ie, a nuclear retaliation.

Putin-MAGA Globalists are those who run at the mouth senselessly about Putin using nukes which he knows better than to do. Putin-MAGA Globalists against Ukraine and NATO are scaremongers who keep failing but never say die about it.
 
Says logic

If my country was nuked and had nukes, I would expect that we would nuke the country that nuked us in retaliation

I would expect at least a proportional response.
If the US nuked a UK city I would think the UK would nuke a US city in response.
 
Once on country uses nukes on another country with nukes, the chance of both using nukes goes up dramatically
Yes but not about Russia, Ukraine, the US and NATO.

The West has indicated already it will not respond in kind against Russian nukes in Ukraine. The resulting cost to Russian conventional forces would be too great for Putin to go nuclear in Ukraine in any way.

I doubt anyway the US would respond an eye for an eye to an enemy using a single nuke. The variable would be an enemy using one nuke or a dozen nukes. While using one nuke is unlikely to get a nuclear response from the US, using a dozen nukes would be different.
 
Idiotic

Taxes would increase and social benefits decreased for no real benefit
That's exactly right. It's not like Russia is going to attack anyone and at a global level, not just a European one, we need more funding for transgender medical care and abortion. We have to get our priorities back to where they belong!
 
The other problem is Russia would be nuking territory they plan to occupy which seems counterproductive to me.

Its rather silly to nuke a city you plan to use.
 
Not necessarily.

It would be about the only option available short of all out war.

I remember there was a famous play about a US bomber that for some reason bombed a Russian city and to prevent WW3 the US President ordered a US strike on US city.

I think they did a remake with George Clooney it's a pretty famous short story.

I just had a look and I think it was called Fail Safe and was done first in 1964.
It's a great story.

 
The other problem is Russia would be nuking territory they plan to occupy which seems counterproductive to me.

Its rather silly to nuke a city you plan to use.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small atomic bombs in 1945 whereas presently there are hugely more powerful bombs.

Still, when Putin's people talk nuclear about Ukraine they talk "tactical" or very small nukes.

By 1947 streets and shops were restored to Hiroshima and repopulation was underway by then.
 
It would be about the only option available short of all out war.

I remember there was a famous play about a US bomber that for some reason bombed a Russian city and to prevent WW3 the US President ordered a US strike on US city.

I think they did a remake with George Clooney it's a pretty famous short story.
You might need to stick to Shakespeare or Chaucer. Dante perhaps.

The US indicated that if Putin used "tactical" nukes in Ukraine the US-NATO response would be conventional against conventional Russian forces to a devastating and catastrophic effect. This indicates the US and probably not only the US also thinks in terms that are not necessarily a tooth for a tooth in-kind nuclear retaliatory. This would avoid a strictly nuclear response that would of course risk being nuclear escalatory as the first response and the only response. That there are other devastating responses that are conventional.
 
You might need to stick to Shakespeare or Chaucer. Dante perhaps.

The US indicated that if Putin used "tactical" nukes in Ukraine the US-NATO response would be conventional against conventional Russian forces to a devastating and catastrophic effect. This indicates the US and probably not only the US also thinks in terms that are not necessarily a tooth for a tooth in-kind nuclear retaliatory. This would avoid a strictly nuclear response that would of course risk being nuclear escalatory as the first response and the only response. That there are other devastating responses that are conventional.

The play is really good.
It's set entirely in the war room and the cockpit of the bomber.

I have a terrible memory and rarely remember films I watch but for some reason this one has stuck in my mind as a cracking watch.
Even the 1964 version would be worth a watch as it doesn't require fancy special effects, it just lets the tension build and flow.

I love films and tv where they are super restricted and have to relly on the strength of the story.

It's got bugger all to do with the topic but the film Buried is about a guy who wakes up to find he's been buried alive and has no idea why and the entire film is just that one guy in a coffin trying too work out what to do.
That's worth a watch as well.
 
That's exactly right. It's not like Russia is going to attack anyone and at a global level, not just a European one, we need more funding for transgender medical care and abortion. We have to get our priorities back to where they belong!


Gosh darn it 1 trillion just ain't enough. Why save American life's with better health care when you can kill people in Asia instead
 
The play is really good.
It's set entirely in the war room and the cockpit of the bomber.


I have a terrible memory and rarely remember films I watch but for some reason this one has stuck in my mind as a cracking watch.
Even the 1964 version would be worth a watch as it doesn't require fancy special effects, it just lets the tension build and flow.

I love films and tv where they are super restricted and have to relly on the strength of the story.

It's got bugger all to do with the topic but the film Buried is about a guy who wakes up to find he's been buried alive and has no idea why and the entire film is just that one guy in a coffin trying too work out what to do.
That's worth a watch as well.
I read the book when it came out and then saw the movie when it came out. I was around 20-21 at the time in 1964-65 and in uni Army ROTC.

There were two very popular novels and films of the genre, Fail Safe about the nuclear bombing accident of a Soviet Russian city that caused the Pres. Kennedy charachter to nuke NYC where his wife was visiting.

The other was the Dr. Strangelove and long title movie I won't bother with here that was a doomsday scenario. I saw this one too when it came out back then. The memorable scene from the Dr. Strangelove movie was the sign at a USAF base "Peace Is Our Profession" while all the bombs were going off and US and Russian troops were shooting each other. And the precious line from the shouting confrontation in the Pentagon War Room that "You can't fight here, this is the War Room!"

I saw the second film you mention which I think was entitled Buried Alive so you and I have the misfortune of having some certain things in common about all this madness. And yeah back then and for a long time yet one nuke launched 'em all. Not so any more. Not necessarily anyway. And not in Ukraine.
 
The Pentagon told Putin that if he used as much as one tactical nuke in Ukraine US and NATO armed forces would sink his entire Black Sea Fleet and kill every last Russian soldier in Ukraine. The Pentagon said it would not respond in kind, meaning not go nuclear in return. That and instead the US would send the Russian military back to World War I if that.



The US and its NATO allies would destroy Russian forces and sink the Black Sea fleet if Vladimir Putin decides to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, former CIA Director David Petraeus has predicted. The retired four-star general spelled out in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday what he believed would happen if the Kremlin warmonger used nuclear weapons. “We would respond by leading a NATO — a collective — effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” he said.


There's no need or intention to respond in kind ,ie, a nuclear retaliation.

Putin-MAGA Globalists are those who run at the mouth senselessly about Putin using nukes which he knows better than to do. Putin-MAGA Globalists against Ukraine and NATO are scaremongers who keep failing but never say die about it.
You do understand that a retired general in an interview saying what he thinks will happen is not the same thing as the pentagon telling anyone, anything right?
 
The EU combined has the second largest military budget in the world. It has more than triple the population of Russia and a GDP more than 7 times larger than Russia.

Certainly large enough to defend against a County that can't beat Ukraine

Russia's economy is slightly smaller than France alone, let alone Germany or the UK. (and the 27 smaller EU members.)
 
The other problem is Russia would be nuking territory they plan to occupy which seems counterproductive to me.

Its rather silly to nuke a city you plan to use.

Russia doesn't see it that way.
 
Russia doesn't see it that way.

Just the clean-up after nuking a city would be mind blowingly expensive.
Unless you have evacuated everyone before the attack the number of casualties who will require medical care will almost certainly overwhelm the hospitals for a few hunderd miles around.

The resources that flooded into Japan after the nukes was huge and those were small weapons compared to what we have now.

I honestly think even 1 nuke going off in London would cause enough devastation and cost to treat the wounded to pretty much cripple our economy.
 
Just the clean-up after nuking a city would be mind blowingly expensive.
Unless you have evacuated everyone before the attack the number of casualties who will require medical care will almost certainly overwhelm the hospitals for a few hunderd miles around.

The resources that flooded into Japan after the nukes was huge and those were small weapons compared to what we have now.

I honestly think even 1 nuke going off in London would cause enough devastation and cost to treat the wounded to pretty much cripple our economy.


It would
You
London is the heart of the UK economy. With what 14% of the UK population and its main port.

One nuke taking our the port would alone hurt the UK economy
 
Just the clean-up after nuking a city would be mind blowingly expensive.
Unless you have evacuated everyone before the attack the number of casualties who will require medical care will almost certainly overwhelm the hospitals for a few hunderd miles around.

The resources that flooded into Japan after the nukes was huge and those were small weapons compared to what we have now.

I honestly think even 1 nuke going off in London would cause enough devastation and cost to treat the wounded to pretty much cripple our economy.

Why ?
Do you still think that a nuclear explosion results in a massive amount of nuclear fall-out ?

You are living in the age of nuclear FISSION bombs, not modern nuclear FUSION bombs.
 
The other problem is Russia would be nuking territory they plan to occupy which seems counterproductive to me.

Its rather silly to nuke a city you plan to use.

Russia doesn't care. It will occupy whatever land they are trying to take...even if it means planting the Hammer & Sickle on a pile of radioactive rubble. As a matter of fact, look up what they did when they seized Chernobyl during the beginnings of the run towards Kyiv. Digging around in radioactive soil. Russian intelligence on full display, folks. I'm surprised they didn't go cutting down trees in the Red Forest & use them to start campfires...they're just dumb enough.

Anyway...they waltzed into places like Mariupol and Bakhmut...both turned to rubble after months of fighting...and planted their rag flag on what was left of them both and declared it "a victory" because they took the land they wanted. They didn't give a tin shit that all they had taken was a pile of dead bodies, ash & debris. They took it and that was all it mattered because that was the objective.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom