Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Keef 757]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

….and none of that has one thing to do with the topic on the table. Apples and potatos. 

Your stated theory is that Putin is crazy enough to use nukes in Ukraine and start a world nuclear war - but he would not dare attack a NATO ally.

OK. 

That's a fair critique.  What I'd say in response is that I think if Putin felt the walls were closing in domestically (dictators don't retire...), I think there's a non-zero chance he'd start a nuclear war to save face.  I don't think those pressures exist to attack a NATO member.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Keef
typo

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[Rimbo 25752]

2 minutes ago, Keef said:

I think there's a non-zero chance he'd start a nuclear war to save face. 

Yes, but the process for launching nukes in Russia, even under Putin, requires more than one person to push a button. If Putin goes that crazy, do you think the other people involved in the process will choose Putin's madness over their own lives?

[cactusflinthead 27593]

6 minutes ago, Keef said:

That's a fair critique.  What I'd say in response is that I think if Putin felt the walls were closing in domestically (dictators don't retire...), I think there's a non-zero chance he'd start a nuclear war to save face.  I don't think those pressures exist to attack a NATO member.

Gonna stick with the nuclear checkdown huh?

Putin might as well eat a bullet after he gives the order because that's all he will have left in the bag.

From post ^

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by cactusflinthead

[immamac 42492]

Idk what all this ominous talk means, but it can't be good for Russia. 

I also don't think the US is fucking around with nuclear stuff. They have eliminated that as a real option for Russia. 

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[tx 3 putt 76159]

3 hours ago, Keef said:

I'm all for staring down Putin, standing up for Ukraine, etc.  But the ultimate goal of what we do should be this: do not end up a nuclear conflict.  If that means giving Russia the annexed lands, so be it.  I have no interest in America (and the world) being vaporized over a country half a world a way.  Putin needs an off ramp so he can save face, and I'm all for giving it to him.  I doubt that he's learned his lesson or anything, but the odds that he actually mount another land grab in his lifetime seems remote.  He doesn't have the political capital internally to do it.

[MillerEP 30339]

Ultimately all this handwringing over nuclear weapons being used is out of our control. Putin is the one who decides, and he clearly isn't a rational actor. We might as well continue to stick to our principles of defending the democracy of the two and opposing the terrorist. It also completely forgets that there are other actors in this, Ukraine and their neighbors for starters. Ukraine will continue to defend their homes with or without us even if they have to use sticks, and their neighbors will continue to resist Russian aggression with or without us. We might as well do our part and go down as men doing the right thing.(Figure of speech from my Stoicism, not that I believe they'll actually nuke anything, especially not the US)

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

32 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

"Peace in our time," eh Keef?

You don't seem to understand something. If we let him use the threat of nukes to gain territory, he'll do it again. He's said as much. He's made it clear that Ukraine is just a road he intends to use to invade more countries, and just keep going.

We've made it abundantly clear to him -- both through back channels and publicly -- that if he does use a nuke, his situation will be far worse. At least with the current conflict, we've made it clear we won't attack Russia, nor will we allow the weapons we're sending to Ukraine to be used in Russia. If he uses a nuke? All bets are off, and it will be us annexing Moscow, instead of Moscow annexing the Luhansk, in the end.

At least Hitler declared that Germany had no further territorial ambitions after it annexed the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was obviously wrong to believe him, but at least he had some basis to believe Hitler wouldn’t pursue further expansion.

This is the exact opposite. Russia has said that it will continue expanding after it defeats Ukraine.  Why would you possibly acquiesce to that?  It doesn’t make any sense.  It’s not pragmatic. It’s not realistic. It’s just cowardice.

[tx 3 putt 76159]

49 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

You can bet China has taken notice. Does anyone think China is about to launch a strike against Taiwan?  The attack wouldn't make it past a couple of days . The US has shut up the World.

CHIEF

 

 

they've noticed all their russian based equipment / hardware is pure crap. they do have the advantage of huge numbers that can be thrown into a meat grinder 

Edited September 30, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[George 487]

19 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

It's not even about the "attack" but all the economic and strategic pain our allies would bring about, with an economic game of chicken to brew and wait for China to break first-- because they well.  Naval blockades and denial of access to food, energy, and rare earths imports would break them in a matter of weeks.  Yes, that will all hurt us too, but I hope our lazy and naive politicians have realized enough that the CCP's butt-fumbles (cargo, manufacturing, Covid-19) are severe enough to diversify and onshore.

I believe butt-punt is the preferred nomenclature. 

[tx 3 putt 76159]

1 hour ago, Keef said:

If Hitler had nukes, we'd all be dead.  Neville Chamberlain was wrong at the time, clearly.  But we're playing with a different set of cards now.  Absent nukes, we absolutely would have been in a conventional war with Russia, probably several times over.  But nukes exist, and we haven't, and I would prefer that we continue to not be in a nuclear war with them.  

 

one bomb on london and the us signs a peace treaty asap 

[Rimbo 25752]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

At least Hitler declared that Germany had no further territorial ambitions after it annexed the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was obviously wrong to believe him, but at least he had some basis to believe Hitler wouldn’t pursue further expansion.

This is the exact opposite. Russia has said that it will continue expanding after it defeats Ukraine.  Why would you possibly acquiesce to that?  It doesn’t make any sense.  It’s not pragmatic. It’s not realistic. It’s just cowardice.

kinda says something about a man when he compares unfavorably to hitler

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[SimonBolivar 10898]

16 minutes ago, Keef said:

I'm from west Texas, and I can vividly remember the rush up to the Afghanistan war and then the Iraq war (LOL) and how they were painted as moral inevitabilities.  A choice between good and evil.  I wasn't alive then, but I'm sure Vietnam was the same way.  America is my home and I love it, but we have our propaganda too. 

What a Trumpesque quote about American history to equivocate Russia with the US. We're talking about a sovergn nation explicitly asking for help after a hypothetical nuclear attack.

 

[The Dog 43771]

Putin needs to accept defeat and have his propagandists change the subject.

Hell is about to rain down on the Russian forces and introducing nukes will only make it worse.

He is done. 

[MillerEP 30339]

 

[Gatorubet 30064]

And I will say this about Keef, we obviously don’t agree with each other, but I appreciate the civil discussion and the willingness to consider the other side’s position. I wish that was a more common thing here.  And yeah, I’m guilty of not doing that enough myself.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

Yes, but the process for launching nukes in Russia, even under Putin, requires more than one person to push a button. If Putin goes that crazy, do you think the other people involved in the process will choose Putin's madness over their own lives?

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

Ultimately all this handwringing over nuclear weapons being used is out of our control. Putin is the one who decides, and he clearly isn't a rational actor. 

Lest we forget, Putin is scared shitless of assassination and things like COVID-19.  He literally brings trusted actors along with him for photo ops (different costumes/uniforms, same people).

The table below is not about projecting power, it's paranoia and a fear of dying.

 

[tx 3 putt 76159]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Lest we forget, Putin is scared shitless of assassination and things like COVID-19.  He literally brings trusted actors along with him for photo ops (different costumes/uniforms, same people).

The table below is not about projecting power, it's paranoia and a fear of dying.

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

[atomheartbevo 89362]

 

[956 Worldwide 34314]

7 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Read it last night. I can't remember who had it. Same with the FAFO index. Both are worth a repost.

Takeaways from the Meduza article.

Comparisons to 22-39. For all the fuckery of 39-45 Germany did quite well in WWI on the Eastern side. They didn't lose to the Russians. Russia dissolved into chaos. 

He ate up the propaganda. He isn't the first. Made me think about the Dagestani guy from last week that said he didn't watch the stupid tv news of hers, that's why he could think.

Logistics. It's still fucking get men with gear from A to B. The Russians aren't even developed enough to palletize anything. The gear which sucketh isn't even available to be bitched about. 

Training is fucking non existent. Leadership is fucked in the head or powerless to effect change. Grunts die in bunches for lack of basic skills.

Maybe we should start timing these pushes. Once a month or so at Putin's man moon. Aho young warrior! We meet again!

22-39 was the end of the Russian Revolution and the Red Terror, the appointment of Stalin as General Secretary and then we move into the famine years, and the Great Terror. 1922 was the year that Russia formally became the Soviet Union.

 

The reference is mostly towards the coming repressions and the darkest years of Russian civic life.  As an aside, those years are the ones that broke Russia as a coherent society.  It isn’t about the bodies and bloodshed, which nations can show resilience to. It’s the long term damage to the national psyche that occurs when betrayal of family, friends, and neighbors is necessary for survival. It’s the lingering effects of what happens when you can trust no one and fate truly is arbitrary. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[956 Worldwide 34314]

4 hours ago, statsman said:

Some of you don’t get it. 
 
There are strategic nukes and tactical nukes. Strategic nukes have huge destructive power. Those are the o es that are launched and dropped in huge masses, to destroy a nation. MAD. 
 
Tactical nukes have a much smaller blast radius. Their purpose is to win a battle, stop an invasion. My father was trained on such a weapon during the Cold War, and during o e of the Berlin standoffs was actually mobilized near the Fulda Gap (it was the Davey Crockett weapon system, a mortar launched tactical nuke). 
 
The tactical nukes are what Putin is threatening. They would ravage the Ukrainian countryside, spoiling square miles for centuries. They would not end the world. 
 
This is Ukraine’s choice. Not ours. If they are willing to take the risk and destruction (cynically, if Russia uses nukes, the world would see to it that they are not a threat to Ukraine for a long time), who are we to say “no”?

 
Also, Russia using nukes (or spoiling nuclear power plants) puts the lie to their claims that Ukraine is Russian). 
 
Also, again, letting a Russian nuclear threat carry the day empowers every shitty nuclear state. 

Just for context, most “tactical” nuclear weapons have several times the yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended 250,000 people in an instant. They are much bigger than the Davy Crockett system.  They are tactical in the sense that they’re not meant to target cities from across the ocean but rather to change the course of the battle; the idea on our side was that we’d never have conventional parity with the USSR in Europe so we would reach for the atom in the event Russia attacked.  
 

These are still tremendously powerful weapons and I would not see Russia as married to the idea of only using them on the actual battlefield. They can just as easy airburst over a city. Particularly in this instance as you’re not seeing the sort of massed armor and infantry that we would have targeted in a place like the Fulda Gap, a city well behind the lines with alleged military infrastructure would be at least as likely a target. 
 

Their use would be a norm-shattering, world changing event even if not “nuclear Holocaust” and would be a signal to us that Putin wants us to believe that he’s ready to go there. I do not believe it’s useful to parse the meaning of tactical vs. strategic in this instance.  

[SydneyCarton 47809]

8 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Not gonna happen. RU’s only warm water European ports require using the Black Sea. To irradiate the Black Sea to non navigable would be suicidal by RU.

Stupid question amnesty: can you irradiate a “sea” in a way that would make passing on it by boat dangerous to crew?

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

She knows she’s admonishing Russian cyber trolls right?

7 hours ago, Keef said:

He's not taking our lunch money.  Or even a close friend's lunch money.  He's taking the lunch money of a country that was part of Russia in my lifetime.  I'm all for taking every non-military measure in the book against Russia.  Decouple our economies.  Kick them of SWIFT.  Etc.  But the bottom line is nuclear war is the worst outcome from the whole world, and I do not support us being the world's police.  

See below: what the fuck happens when he says plug me back into swift or I nuke Poland? Remove sanctions or I nuke the Grand Banks?

7 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And when he knows that the nuclear threat is what gets us to stand down, suddenly all of those things you mention will be met with nuclear threats. 

 

[956 Worldwide 34314]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Stupid question amnesty: can you irradiate a “sea” in a way that would make passing on it by boat dangerous to crew?

She knows she’s admonishing Russian cyber trolls right?

See below: what the fuck happens when he says plug me back into swift or I nuke Poland? Remove sanctions or I nuke the Grand Banks?

 

It would be really hard. The ocean is the best place for testing.  It would cause lots of environmental devastation and the Black Sea is a special case because of slow water exchange. But you couldn’t create it so toxic as to endanger navigation. 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

51 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Stupid question amnesty: can you irradiate a “sea” in a way that would make passing on it by boat dangerous to crew

 

 

I don't think he meant to literally irradiate the sea; rather the ports on the sea.  Russia needs warm water ports; and to render those ports uninhabitable would eliminate the Black Sea.

However to your question: Castle Bravo and the Daigo Fukuryū Maru.  

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Francisco 2.0

[SydneyCarton 47809]

49 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It would be really hard. The ocean is the best place for testing.  It would cause lots of environmental devastation and the Black Sea is a special case because of slow water exchange. But you couldn’t create it so toxic as to endanger navigation. 

That’s what I thought. 

7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

I don't think he meant to literally irradiate the sea; rather the ports on the sea.  Russia needs warm water ports; and to render those ports uninhabitable would eliminate the Black Sea.

However to your question: Castle Bravo and the Daigo Fukuryū Maru.  

 

 

This makes more sense, thank you. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

 

Ukrainians need to destroy the equipment and make them leave on foot.  

Even more relevant than last night

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Putin about to give his speech and officially declare the annexations to be complete

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

 

[Macanudo 12922]

16 hours ago, F250 said:

Is the Wagner Group notorious? I'm thinking it should be phrased as the disreputable Wagner Group.

They're so famous that there infamous.

[Macanudo 12922]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

Well, that's a new take on 40 acres and a mule.

[DDD Dad 14167]

10 hours ago, Keef said:

He's not taking our lunch money.  Or even a close friend's lunch money.  He's taking the lunch money of a country that was part of Russia in my lifetime.  I'm all for taking every non-military measure in the book against Russia.  Decouple our economies.  Kick them of SWIFT.  Etc.  But the bottom line is nuclear war is the worst outcome from the whole world, and I do not support us being the world's police.  

You sound like Charles Lindbergh 

[Hefeweizen 5307]

Putin went all in on Anschluss this morning.  We’re headed to more escalation.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hefeweizen
Fuck Tom Herman

[Eastwood 4394]

7 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

At least Hitler declared that Germany had no further territorial ambitions after it annexed the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was obviously wrong to believe him, but at least he had some basis to believe Hitler wouldn’t pursue further expansion.

This is the exact opposite. Russia has said that it will continue expanding after it defeats Ukraine.  Why would you possibly acquiesce to that?  It doesn’t make any sense.  It’s not pragmatic. It’s not realistic. It’s just cowardice.

When Putin annexed Crimea, he claimed that it was only because he wanted to protect ethnic Russians and that Crimea wanted to be annexed. He then stated that he Russia would stop there and had no plans for further annexations. 
 

On the old site, I was calling for intervention and the removal of Russia from Crimea and the response was “we don’t want to get into a nuclear conflict over a small patch of land.” The cliff notes of my response are that appeasement didn’t work with Hitler and it will not work with Putin. He’ll come back for more, but he will be more patient than Hitler in doing it. I cautioned that we either stop him at Crimea or risk more death and destruction in the future. 
 

How much more evidence do we need? Where is the line? How many more lives need to be destroyed? The best time to stop Putin was 2014. The second best time is now. It needs to end with this attempted annexation. 

[Eastwood 4394]

2 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Putin went all in on Anschluss this morning.  We’re headed to more escalation.

 

 

Russian dictator, go fuck yourself. 

[Laxtonto 11926]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

It is almost like people are starting to pay attention the overlap of HIMARS and how the terrain can lead to a cascading collapse without any natural obstacles East of the Oskil heading towards Svatove.

 

What we need to pay attention with this is does the RU pull other troops back to try and establish a more cohesive front now in that region or do they hinge their hopes on fortifying the cities and using the existing fortifications. These positions were employed with the idea of having the Oskil river and their bridgeheads as the funnel and so are most likely facing primarily west, and so you are probably seeing positions frantically being dug to help blunt an offensive from their south. The RU may be hoping now to just hold on and praying for a wet fall and then the onset of winter slows the UKA advance.

[Parliament 14112]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

There is a lot of valid criticism of the military-industrial complex, their lobbyists and the Congressmen in their pocket.  But credit where it's due.  Their shit works REAL good.

When aliens inevitably attack our planet, I'm liking our chances.  We'll definitely cover the spread.

[immamac 42492]

16 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Putin went all in on Anschluss this morning.  We’re headed to more escalation.

 

 

I don't think this means what you think it means. Russia just fucked up real bad doing this. They can't escalate, they have no offensive and barely any defensive capability remaining in that region. Nukes are completely off the table and they won't even get the chance to launch them if they fuck around too much. The UN straight up saying Russia has violated the charter and everyone not saying shit is complicit acceptance of that statement. This is the beginning of the endgame. 

They use a nuke and they are effectively done as a nation. China, india, everyone will not do any trade with them. China already told them to stfu about nukes and that wasn't gonna fly. 

[Keef 757]

17 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

What a Trumpesque quote about American history to equivocate Russia with the US. We're talking about a sovergn nation explicitly asking for help after a hypothetical nuclear attack.

 

There is obviously no equating what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. what Putin is doing in Russia.  They are not moral equivalents, or even close to that.  But my point was we as a population got all riled up about two consecutive wars that, looking back on it, I have a hard time articulating real reasons why we were even there (especially Iraq).

And the question that was posed was, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, should we escalate further (or even respond reasonably in kind, like by directly attacking Russian troops) and risk a global nuclear war.  I said no, for the reasons I articulated, and others said yes, for reasons (that are very good reasons) that I appreciate and understand.  

[KYHorn 16808]

Video below is grainy but allegedly depicts pigs consuming the corpse of a Russian captain.

https://t.me/gruz_200_rus/3798 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

The Americans are bad guys for bombing Nazi Germany

 

 

[Hefeweizen 5307]

1 minute ago, KYHorn said:

Video below is grainy but allegedly depicts pigs consuming the corpse of a Russian captain.

https://t.me/gruz_200_rus/3798 

No thanks.  I don’t need to see that.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

To be fair, he’s probably scared of saying something that would upset the officials round him.

But I  the idea that he thinks his nation of 140 million is fighting over 4 billion people.  Aggy footballesque.

 

[KYHorn 16808]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

Qanon relative was rambling about how the US are the bad guys and that we are the only ones to use nukes so we have no room to complain.

I sent her this.