Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7518

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

meh.   i agree with him about the US is Iraq misadventure. I was very much against it at the time and I’m sad to say that I was very much right.

whether you agree with him or not, he certainly does not strike me as a troll. Having a different opinion is not grounds for a send off.

I can't tell you how indifferent I am to it. I've been posting on this thread for almost a year now, and the reactions to me - as they so often are - are mixed. 

If you want a dialogue say something you disagree with me on. Just to warn anyone, you're likely to get way more of a dialogue on my end than you ever wanted, but so it goes. He didn't do that, so I assume he wasn't interested in a dialogue. Which is fine by me. No hard feelings. I don't care. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8625

  • MillerEP

    7300

  • Schulz2.0

    3649

  • InkaUtexas

    3008

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

SL Xpress

SL Xpress 7518

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's extremely important for one person:  Vladimir Putin.  

Your typical Russians clearly do not give a shit about it, especially since they were told it would be over within weeks.  Otherwise they wouldn't be pulling people off of streets or from their workplaces back in Russia to fill out the ranks, or forcing Russians to charge Ukrainian positions or risk being shot by their own people.   Or hell, emptying out Russian prisons for Putin's personal PMC. That speaks volumes about how desperate the Russian leadership is.

The fact that the Russian mouthpieces keep changing their messages speaks volumes about how the Russian people don't buy it because the Russian mouthpieces have tried to sell them on a continuous stream of bullshit from "Nazis" (not the German Nazi kind either) to NATO being on their border and wanting to attack to Ukraine will attack Russia if they don't demilitarize them, etc. The fact that they keep looking around for reasons for this war shows that it's not resonating with the Russian people.

The Russian government has not been able to find a single reason that resonates with the Russian people, which is also why they are jailing people who speak out against the war.  If the war was popular, those protestors would be shunned and ignored, but instead they are treated as enemies of the state.

On the modern battlefield it matters, especially with precise artillery and HIMARS that prevent a massive buildup of troops in any one area.  Russians are constantly under some kind of surveillance, from satellite down to some dude with a drone.  We have the video proof.

Also, if they are rushing masses of people across fields without tanks or APCs or IFVs, then those troops will not be able to hold any ground they attack.

Absolutely, with the top reasons being the two I mentioned - Russia won't stop at Ukraine, and Russia would control nearly a third of the world's wheat/corn supplies.

But that one person is the critical factor. He's using language and a message that is compelling enough he's not overthrown. There aren't mass protests. Protests, sure, but they're extremely isolated. Compare what is happening in Russia to what happened in Ukraine in 2004 or 2014. Compare it to what has happened in Iran that started with the hijab enforcement. Turkiye had bigger demonstrations regarding a park in Istanbul. The 2020-21 protests in Belarus were way larger than anything that's gone on in Russia, in a population 1/14th the size. 

Look at the surveys and watch the interviews. Listen to the audio recordings. This is not a people that think what they're doing is wrong. They think they're fully justified, and that the invasion and the subsequent battle for Ukraine is an existential battle against the West. 

Sure, the whole thing is being run incompetently because Russia. It's a kleptocracy with no value for competence on virtually any level. Survival and upward mobility is based on a tricky navigation between being important, but not too important, being loyal, being seen as not a threat, but still bringing value. None of that screams effective leadership. Oh, and a certain ruthlessness and a disregard for human life.

You're talking about precision artillery and HIMARS, which Ukraine did not have prior to the invasion, and does not have the ability to produce themselves. You said: "Quantity no longer has a quality all its own if you are facing off against a modern army with masses of manpower or 1960s tanks." That's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Quantity absolutely had a quality of its own in that war. If you mean the addition of precision artillery and HIMARS, and the ammunition to shoot them, that's a different story. 

As long as the West keeps supplying Ukraine, they'll be able to hold their own. My supposition - and I feel like I'm right - is that politically that won't last forever. In the US, not with an attritional war where another $100 billion is spent. If Ukraine gains the offensive like they did in the fall, that helps to change the narrative. 

To me personally the war and recovery is a bargain at $1 to 2 trillion. It sends a clear message to an evil empire and anyone who would emulate it, fuck around and find out. It helps a people I consider among the bravest on this planet to preserve their culture, their history, and their language, and to finally be integrated into the West in a way that very few countries have earned more. 

But there should still be a sense of urgency among the nations of the West in ways that representative governments aren't always terrific about. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15313

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

This - the US had a few more resources than the Taliban, and we spent 20 years there, and still ultimately left.

Russia does not have the arsenal that the West does (and most of what we are giving them is old stuff).  Russia's old stuff is absolutely shit, thanks to all of the corruption and the oligarchs taking resources from the military.

Lest we forget, Russia's military budget was less than $70 billion, while our budget is over $800 billion.  The oligarchs and Putin gutted their military, and it shows in things like how they store their older equipment - they can't use it now, unlike the US and Europe that can produce our surplus stuff and get it to the Ukrainians in working order.  And Russia's ass-backward military focused on fucking trains and not trucks.  It's insane that they are using shitty civilian vehicles to transport people and ammo.

The fact that Russia is making assaults without tanks and APCs/AFVs speaks volumes about all of their problems.  This isn't 1943 - they can't keep doing human waves against modern armies that have them under constant surveillance.

Quantity no longer has a quality all its own if you are facing off against a modern army with masses of manpower or 1960s tanks.

This is where I'm at.  The idea that Russia could pivot and extend offensive operations to other countries is laughable.  They are stuck.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted

In regard to this Hersh guy and his bullshit, if we had wanted to blow this up, and do it secretly, we would never use surface vessels.  As it turns out, we have these things called submarines, and they are very quiet.  We also have some guys that work both in them and outside of them, and they are good at what they do.  What a bunch of idiotic nonsense.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89788

Posted
Posted
Just now, BamaATL said:

In regard to this Hersh guy and his bullshit, if we had wanted to blow this up, and do it secretly, we would never use surface vessels.  As it turns out, we have these things called submarines, and they are very quiet.  We also have some guys that work both in them and outside of them, and they are good at what they do.  What a bunch of idiotic nonsense.  

We were also already getting them shutdown via sanctions.  Blowing them up served no purpose for us.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted

So I got to thinking about maintenance/operations costs associated with military spending as it pertains to this conflict for comparison between ourselves (not Nato) and Russia.  There a few startling differences that I think are important.  There are a couple of important things to consider:

1.  The fiscal 2023 budget for the US, based on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act is $816.7 billion dollars.  

2.  The russian buget (which is estimated because official figures are not readily public domain) is approximately $84 billion (which is likely generous).

3.  Maintenance/operation of a single US aircraft carrier is approximately $2.5 billion(it wasn't clear to me if this is just for the carrier or the carrier group).  We have 10 of these which is approximately $22.5 billion annually, or nearly 3% of the total budget.  russia has one carrier, (that is in dry dock and catches on fire (a lot)) but if it were to be operating on nearly the same plane as ours would represent 3% of their total defense budget for just a single carrier on par with ours.  

4.  This got me curious about nuclear arsenal maintenance costs.  Our estimate costs to for this is approximately $60 billion annually (see CBO link below)

If you were to assume that the Russian stockpile is more or less the same size as ours it stands to reason that maintenance cost would realistically be in the same ball park.  Now we know corruption is rampant in the russian military, but these numbers indicate there is no reason to believe that their stockpile is actually maintained or anywhere even close operational.  Essentially $60 billion to them would represent roughly 75% of their entire military budget, and that presumes no one is stealing.  I have every reason to believe that they do have some nuclear capability and deterrent, but that stockpile is bullshit.  I'd be willing to bet that well less than 10% of their total stockpile is actually operational or even capable of being operational.  The true number (and this is just me guessing) somewhere between 1 to 3% of their reported arsenal.  That is quite literally the maximum I can see them even being able to afford. I honestly believe this realistic.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If carried out%2C the plans,billion a year%2C CBO estimates.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30303

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So I got to thinking about maintenance/operations costs associated with military spending as it pertains to this conflict for comparison between ourselves (not Nato) and Russia.  There a few startling differences that I think are important.  There are a couple of important things to consider:

1.  The fiscal 2023 budget for the US, based on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act is $816.7 billion dollars.  

2.  The russian buget (which is estimated because official figures are not readily public domain) is approximately $84 billion (which is likely generous).

3.  Maintenance/operation of a single US aircraft carrier is approximately $2.5 billion(it wasn't clear to me if this is just for the carrier or the carrier group).  We have 10 of these which is approximately $22.5 billion annually, or nearly 3% of the total budget.  russia has one carrier, (that is in dry dock and catches on fire (a lot)) but if it were to be operating on nearly the same plane as ours would represent 3% of their total defense budget for just a single carrier on par with ours.  

4.  This got me curious about nuclear arsenal maintenance costs.  Our estimate costs to for this is approximately $60 billion annually (see CBO link below)

If you were to assume that the Russian stockpile is more or less the same size as ours it stands to reason that maintenance cost would realistically be in the same ball park.  Now we know corruption is rampant in the russian military, but these numbers indicate there is no reason to believe that their stockpile is actually maintained or anywhere even close operational.  Essentially $60 billion to them would represent roughly 75% of their entire military budget, and that presumes no one is stealing.  I have every reason to believe that they do have some nuclear capability and deterrent, but that stockpile is bullshit.  I'd be willing to bet that well less than 10% of their total stockpile is actually operational or even capable of being operational.  The true number (and this is just me guessing) somewhere between 1 to 3% of their reported arsenal.  That is quite literally the maximum I can see them even being able to afford. I honestly believe this realistic.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If carried out%2C the plans,billion a year%2C CBO estimates.

 

Whatever money they are spending on nukes, I’d bet it’s on their submarines

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17682

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So I got to thinking about maintenance/operations costs associated with military spending as it pertains to this conflict for comparison between ourselves (not Nato) and Russia.  There a few startling differences that I think are important.  There are a couple of important things to consider:

1.  The fiscal 2023 budget for the US, based on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act is $816.7 billion dollars.  

2.  The russian buget (which is estimated because official figures are not readily public domain) is approximately $84 billion (which is likely generous).

3.  Maintenance/operation of a single US aircraft carrier is approximately $2.5 billion(it wasn't clear to me if this is just for the carrier or the carrier group).  We have 10 of these which is approximately $22.5 billion annually, or nearly 3% of the total budget.  russia has one carrier, (that is in dry dock and catches on fire (a lot)) but if it were to be operating on nearly the same plane as ours would represent 3% of their total defense budget for just a single carrier on par with ours.  

4.  This got me curious about nuclear arsenal maintenance costs.  Our estimate costs to for this is approximately $60 billion annually (see CBO link below)

If you were to assume that the Russian stockpile is more or less the same size as ours it stands to reason that maintenance cost would realistically be in the same ball park.  Now we know corruption is rampant in the russian military, but these numbers indicate there is no reason to believe that their stockpile is actually maintained or anywhere even close operational.  Essentially $60 billion to them would represent roughly 75% of their entire military budget, and that presumes no one is stealing.  I have every reason to believe that they do have some nuclear capability and deterrent, but that stockpile is bullshit.  I'd be willing to bet that well less than 10% of their total stockpile is actually operational or even capable of being operational.  The true number (and this is just me guessing) somewhere between 1 to 3% of their reported arsenal.  That is quite literally the maximum I can see them even being able to afford. I honestly believe this realistic.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If carried out%2C the plans,billion a year%2C CBO estimates.

 

You can't compare budgets like that without at least looking at purchasing power parity. You can get a lot more for a dollar in Russia than in the United States. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17758

Posted
Posted (edited)

So it's looking more and more to me that Russia could just wind up completely losing this 100% on its' own, and has shot itself in the dick.  It's almost as if the Ukes don't have to go after them at all, just let the Russians come on and get destroyed.  But let's game it out a bit.  Say Ukraine has a spring campaign that is wildly effective and regains its 1991 borders.  Does Russia continue just to lob shells at Ukrainian territory from Russia?  Does the border from Belarus to to the Black Sea wind up looking like a super long (and super expensive) DMZ like NK/SK?  If the Uke's retaliate by attacks into Russia where does that leave Russia?  Does continued Russian lower grade attack prevent Ukraine from joining NATO because there's an ongoing low grade conflict?  

I know this is a long way off, but seeing all those Russian tanks stuck in the mud, general's committing "suicide" by falling out of windows or taking shots to the back of the head really make me wonder what the end looks like if Ukraine can take real advantage of the Russian organizational chaos. 

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

This could explain Wagner's diminishing presence.  This is the Russian military.  You don't launch big counteroffensives by filling your ranks with prisoners who don't want to be there.

 

In the history of modern warfare, I'm not aware of anybody outside of Russia using prisoners for combat operations.  I know some countries have used prisoners for noncombat roles, but I can't think of anybody other than Russia that has used them for combat.  And Russia seems to do that pretty regularly.

The reasons not to use prisoners seem pretty obvious.  Apart from the fact that they're not going to make very good soldiers because they lack both training and motivation, I can see some other very serious problems:

1) So to state the obvious, these guys are criminals.  And to motivate them, presumably you're offering some form of clemency.  But what happens then?  You have a bunch of criminals running around Russian cities with weapons training and probably some serious PTSD.  Is that really a good recipe for societal tranquility?

2) To restate the obvious, these guys are criminals.  Not only do they have no motivation to fight for Russia; they have some motivation to fight against it.  How many officers are going to get fragged by the prisoners they're ostensibly commanding?  The officers know that risk, and that leads them to have less contact with the troops.  Which is itself then going to have battlefield consequences when the troops are left without leadership.

3) But at some point, you run out of criminals.  Even if Russia.  So when that happens, the state has an incentive to "create" prisoners.  So they'll start prosecuting things that ordinarily wouldn't be crimes that are prosecuted.  And that leads to a reduction in the respect for the rule of law, which can endanger the regime.

And so lurking in these problems we kind of see why Russia does this and nobody else does. 

1) There is no societal tranquility in Russia.  That's not something the Russian state has ever offered.  If anything, the Russia state offers only a marginal reduction in social chaos.  So the resultant increase in violent crime isn't really an issue, and certainly not an issue that would impact the regime's calculus.

2) Russia officers think they could be fragged by their non-prisoner troops, so it's really no change.  The Russian Army is little more than a prison in the best of circumstances.  So the risk to the officers is always present, regardless of who makes up the soldiery.  

3) Russians have no respect for the rule of law--they know it's a farce.  So their respect for the rule of law can't be diminished.

It's a fucked-up country.  So of course they're going to fight a war in a fucked-up manner.

15 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So I got to thinking about maintenance/operations costs associated with military spending as it pertains to this conflict for comparison between ourselves (not Nato) and Russia.  There a few startling differences that I think are important.  There are a couple of important things to consider:

1.  The fiscal 2023 budget for the US, based on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act is $816.7 billion dollars.  

2.  The russian buget (which is estimated because official figures are not readily public domain) is approximately $84 billion (which is likely generous).

3.  Maintenance/operation of a single US aircraft carrier is approximately $2.5 billion(it wasn't clear to me if this is just for the carrier or the carrier group).  We have 10 of these which is approximately $22.5 billion annually, or nearly 3% of the total budget.  russia has one carrier, (that is in dry dock and catches on fire (a lot)) but if it were to be operating on nearly the same plane as ours would represent 3% of their total defense budget for just a single carrier on par with ours.  

4.  This got me curious about nuclear arsenal maintenance costs.  Our estimate costs to for this is approximately $60 billion annually (see CBO link below)

If you were to assume that the Russian stockpile is more or less the same size as ours it stands to reason that maintenance cost would realistically be in the same ball park.  Now we know corruption is rampant in the russian military, but these numbers indicate there is no reason to believe that their stockpile is actually maintained or anywhere even close operational.  Essentially $60 billion to them would represent roughly 75% of their entire military budget, and that presumes no one is stealing.  I have every reason to believe that they do have some nuclear capability and deterrent, but that stockpile is bullshit.  I'd be willing to bet that well less than 10% of their total stockpile is actually operational or even capable of being operational.  The true number (and this is just me guessing) somewhere between 1 to 3% of their reported arsenal.  That is quite literally the maximum I can see them even being able to afford. I honestly believe this realistic.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If carried out%2C the plans,billion a year%2C CBO estimates.

 

This has been my conclusion for some time.  And I think Russian behavior shows this might be true.  Putin and others keep threatening to use nuclear weapons.  But they never make any move toward actually doing so.  They don't put any more submarines to sea; they don't move any nuclear weapons around; they don't increase the alert status on their bombers or missile forces.  And one very reasonable explanation for that is that they can't.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Just went with the first number I saw online. 3% of their nuclear arsenal is still 134 nuclear bombs. I think the estimate is that you'd only need about 100 nukes to essentially destroy the entire world

That is true, it would still constitute a very destructive force.  However, in order to have a deterrent, you can't use them all.  Now would constitute a deterrent. I have no idea, but that does invariably limit what they could use in a purely offensive way.  

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can't compare budgets like that without at least looking at purchasing power parity. You can get a lot more for a dollar in Russia than in the United States. 

This also is true, however, I didn't calculate any sort of number for theft loss within the russian military in part because I figured purchasing power and theft would be a wash.  Admittedly, that's a big assumption.  

24 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Well now I'm super comforted by the thought that a huge percentage of their nuclear arsenal is rotting away in warehouses without any maintenance, guarded by drunks and convicts, and overseen by the corrupt. What could possibly go wrong?

You do realize that these go inert without maintenance?  They aren't really a threat without the warheads being replaced about every 8 to 10 years.  I think that's part of the reason they have been using dummy missiles without warheads, they haven't been maintained, are useless otherwise.  The good news is, the ones that aren't heavily guarded are likely inert.  

The bigger take away isn't that they can't afford it now, it's that they never could afford it.  Additionally.  we have people who have a job that is entirely about studying all this, and if some guy like me can draw at least some rough assumptions, I'm pretty confident in saying that not only do intel people have extraordinary insight into this, they likely know where just about everything is.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Just went with the first number I saw online. 3% of their nuclear arsenal is still 134 nuclear bombs. I think the estimate is that you'd only need about 100 nukes to essentially destroy the entire world

That's ridiculous.  A hundred warheads wouldn't destroy the United States.

A hundred warheads would really fuck our shit up.  It would take months to restore basic things like electricity.  And it would take years to return to some semblance of normality, although now "normal" is life without New York and Chicago and the fucking Packers winning the Super Bowl every year?

But the United States wouldn't be "destroyed."  Much less the entire world.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30303

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This also is true, however, I didn't calculate any sort of number for theft loss within the russian military in part because I figured purchasing power and theft would be a wash.  Admittedly, that's a big assumption.  .  

I’ve read estimates that up to 40% of the military budget was siphoned or stolen every year.   Even if half that amount - that is a crazy amount of money being stolen.

Edit: My memory was wrong.  20% is the estimate. I blame lingering chemo brain

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30303

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's ridiculous.  A hundred warheads wouldn't destroy the United States.

A hundred warheads would really fuck our shit up.  It would take months to restore basic things like electricity.  And it would take years to return to some semblance of normality, although now "normal" is life without New York and Chicago and the fucking Packers winning the Super Bowl every year?

But the United States wouldn't be "destroyed."  Much less the entire world.

5B5E4A91-C922-4211-A156-918A6A707497.gif.a88fed121734a8965824c82dd4c62f6f.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48167

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's ridiculous.  A hundred warheads wouldn't destroy the United States.

A hundred warheads would really fuck our shit up.  It would take months to restore basic things like electricity.  And it would take years to return to some semblance of normality, although now "normal" is life without New York and Chicago and the fucking Packers winning the Super Bowl every year?

But the United States wouldn't be "destroyed."  Much less the entire world.

Not sure I agree with you there, bud. Here's an old article from the Post:

https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/it-would-only-take-100-nuclear-weapons-to-destroy-society/

At the end it brings up things like agricultural disruption/starvation, potential global temperature drop, nuclear winter, worldwide shit just from one country getting fucked. If that country is the US, and most of the major cities are destroyed, as well as the means for us to rebuilt ourselves, we.d be fucked. People would survive, but we'd basically be a giant wasteland. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Not sure I agree with you there, bud. Here's an old article from the Post:

https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/it-would-only-take-100-nuclear-weapons-to-destroy-society/

At the end it brings up things like agricultural disruption/starvation, potential global temperature drop, nuclear winter, worldwide shit just from one country getting fucked. If that country is the US, and most of the major cities are destroyed, as well as the means for us to rebuilt ourselves, we.d be fucked. People would survive, but we'd basically be a giant wasteland. 

I'm very skeptical, because I think that overstates the environmental impact and because I don't see why agricultural production would return to pre-industrial output.  They're nuking New York, not Kansas.

But that does raise a question--would Russia know how few operational warheads they actually have?  If a bunch of them are categorized as operational, but are in reality inert due to lack of maintenance, then Russia would probably launch a counterforce strike rather than a strike at American cities.  In that case they'd be nuking North Dakota.  But if a lot of those missiles are inert, then they'd actually not be nuking North Dakota.

The point is that their nuclear forces are a big question mark, perhaps even to the Russians.  And that does a lot to prevent them from actually trying to use them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105319

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

In the history of modern warfare, I'm not aware of anybody outside of Russia using prisoners for combat operations.  I know some countries have used prisoners for noncombat roles, but I can't think of anybody other than Russia that has used them for combat. 

You need to catch up on your history.  I recommend this riveting documentary:

cbf7fab7-44c7-47ca-b371-e3eeab8785c1.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48167

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm very skeptical, because I think that overstates the environmental impact and because I don't see why agricultural production would return to pre-industrial output.  They're nuking New York, not Kansas.

But that does raise a question--would Russia know how few operational warheads they actually have?  If a bunch of them are categorized as operational, but are in reality inert due to lack of maintenance, then Russia would probably launch a counterforce strike rather than a strike at American cities.  In that case they'd be nuking North Dakota.  But if a lot of those missiles are inert, then they'd actually not be nuking North Dakota.

The point is that their nuclear forces are a big question mark, perhaps even to the Russians.  And that does a lot to prevent them from actually trying to use them.

You don't think they're going to Nuke American's agricultural centers, much less the mid-west where our missile silos and many of our nuclear defense bases are stationed? I'm highly fucking skeptical that they wont. You're watching a country that has attempted to wage economic/agricultural warfare with the world, and you don't think they'd target our food supply? Shitheads in the fucking middle ages knew to burn cornfields. 

The fact of the matter is, they have 4200 nukes. Even if just 10% of those are functional, that's 420. Lets say they use half of that and save half for a deterrent, that is...more than enough Nukes to get our top 100 cities, and also fuck up our bread basket. Even if they're targeting our defense bases, that means they're still fucking up Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc. We built those things in farm fields in the 50s and 60s. So up, yeah, I think our agriculture is going to be buttfucked. And a bunch of cityfolk are going to rush to the farms and just grow shit without missing a beat? In potentially irradiated fields? I don't really understand how you don't see this as not just an option, but a likely option. 

Hit New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, The Houston Ship Channel, the Louisiana Energy Corridor, and other major industrial base and the breadbasket and see what happens. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You don't think they're going to Nuke American's agricultural centers, much less the mid-west where our missile silos and many of our nuclear defense bases are stationed? I'm highly fucking skeptical that they wont. You're watching a country that has attempted to wage economic/agricultural warfare with the world, and you don't think they'd target our food supply? Shitheads in the fucking middle ages knew to burn cornfields. 

The fact of the matter is, they have 4200 nukes. Even if just 10% of those are functional, that's 420. Lets say they use half of that and save half for a deterrent, that is...more than enough Nukes to get our top 100 cities, and also fuck up our bread basket. Even if they're targeting our defense bases, that means they're still fucking up Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc. We built those things in farm fields in the 50s and 60s. So up, yeah, I think our agriculture is going to be buttfucked. And a bunch of cityfolk are going to rush to the farms and just grow shit without missing a beat? In potentially irradiated fields? I don't really understand how you don't see this as not just an option, but a likely option. 

Hit New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, The Houston Ship Channel, the Louisiana Energy Corridor, and other major industrial base and the breadbasket and see what happens. 

 

Whoa--we're talking about the 100-nuke scenario.  I agree that if they have 4,200 nuclear weapons, then that's waaaay more than enough to do the job.  But with only 100 warheads, you have to choose.

Do you try a limited counterforce strike by taking out the missile silos in Montana and the Dakotas and the bomber forces in Nebraska and Kansas?  Or do you take out the major cities?  Because with just 100 warheads, you can't do both.

Regardless, I think it's an academic discussion.  We'll never find out, because the Russians know that only a fraction of their warheads are operational.  But humorously, they probably don't know which ones.  So that eliminates their ability to launch a counterforce strike.  And with no ability to launch a counterforce strike, they would know that the retaliatory attack would be devastating.  

So basically, we aren't going to see a Russian nuclear attack on the United States (or probably anyone).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30496

Posted
Posted

^heh

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/ukraine-children-sent-russia-re-education-camps


Thousands of Ukrainian children put through Russian ‘re-education’ camps, US report finds
New report details network of dozens of Russian camps aimed at giving children pro-Moscow views, with some children detained indefinitely

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...