Yes, I agree, that may be necessary to avoid the collapse of our proxy. Better hurry!We need to be prepared to support NATO or UN presence. I think you will be surprised with the planning going on behind the scenes.
Yes, I agree, that may be necessary to avoid the collapse of our proxy. Better hurry!We need to be prepared to support NATO or UN presence. I think you will be surprised with the planning going on behind the scenes.
Well said!The argument that Washington and NATO 'picked a fight with Russia' shows a complete lack of understanding of Europe. Prior to the Russian seizure of Crimea some major European nations (notably France and Germany) were doing their best to build a positive relationship with Russia. Even after Crimea, and the imposition of sanctions by the EU, these efforts continued. Ukraine's applications to join NATO and the EU were handled carefully and slowly to prevent antagonising Russia. Russia was even invited to join the EU, not as a political sop but as a genuine effort to get Russia committed to peace in Europe. It's difficult to see how the European members of NATO can be accused of picking a fight.
Having nukes isn't enough. You need a delivery system, which is usually much more difficult. Consider North Korea, which has had, at least, simple atomic devices for well over a decade. But they are still "testing" their delivery systems (aka Rockets). They seem to be pretty much there at this point, which is a cause for concern. Not so sure Iran has a delivery system, unless they fly it attached to a MIG fighter jet, which can get shot down. Speaking of which, Israel has a good chance of shooting down even a ballistic missile, as they've been developing that Iron Shield thing for a long time now.I think that as soon as Iran thinks they have enough nukes to keep the rest of the world at bay. They nuke Israel. Then Israel nukes them.
You mean they can't be delivered with $1000 of solid motors by any competent rocketry amateur?Having nukes isn't enough. You need a delivery system, which is usually much more difficult. Consider North Korea, which has had, at least, simple atomic devices for well over a decade. But they are still "testing" their delivery systems (aka Rockets). They seem to be pretty much there at this point, which is a cause for concern. Not so sure Iran has a delivery system, unless they fly it attached to a MIG fighter jet, which can get shot down. Speaking of which, Israel has a good chance of shooting down even a ballistic missile, as they've been developing that Iron Shield thing for a long time now.
Well, the CATO would be amusing at least.You mean they can't be delivered with $1000 of solid motors by any competent rocketry amateur?
You mean they can't be delivered with $1000 of solid motors by any competent rocketry amateur?
There goes my 'get rich quick' scheme!You mean they can't be delivered with $1000 of solid motors by any competent rocketry amateur?
Wait a minute. Remind me again which army is on the verge of collapsing? Which army has the best gained/lost territory ratio for the last 6 months?Yes, I agree, that may be necessary to avoid the collapse of our proxy. Better hurry!
Yes, Ukraine has acquired the most territory recently.Wait a minute. Remind me again which army is on the verge of collapsing? Which army has the best gained/lost territory ratio for the last 6 months?
So why do you think their army is near collapse?Yes, Ukraine has acquired the most territory recently.
So begrudgingly admitted… You're not just a little disappointed are you?.Yes, Ukraine has acquired the most territory recently.
The last time I said anything controversial or off-script, I was banned from the thread. I don't want it to happen again. And I don't want to be drawn off-topic. So I'm extremely reluctant to get into nitty-gritty details of the war in Ukraine here.So why do you think their army is near collapse?
Iran's version of a delivery system will probably be something out of a Tom Clancy book (Sum of All Fears anyone) they are a terrorist state. However they could put a mobile Scud launcher on a ship and possibly (though not without very high risk) and get to with hitting distance of a number of coastal cities.Having nukes isn't enough. You need a delivery system, which is usually much more difficult. Consider North Korea, which has had, at least, simple atomic devices for well over a decade. But they are still "testing" their delivery systems (aka Rockets). They seem to be pretty much there at this point, which is a cause for concern. Not so sure Iran has a delivery system, unless they fly it attached to a MIG fighter jet, which can get shot down. Speaking of which, Israel has a good chance of shooting down even a ballistic missile, as they've been developing that Iron Shield thing for a long time now.
You weren't banned from the thread. You made statements and, when questioned, were unableto provide evidence to substantiate them. You decided to leave the thread.The last time I said anything controversial or off-script, I was banned from the thread. I don't want it to happen again. And I don't want to be drawn off-topic. So I'm extremely reluctant to get into nitty-gritty details of the war in Ukraine here.
But if you must have clue, check out the latest on Bakhmut. It has been penetrated from two directions, and encirclement attempts are also taking place. Now, the UK and US press express great puzzlement as to why Russia would put such importance to such an unimportant place. If you want more of my comment, get me back into the main thread.
While that is the "modern" point of nuclear deterrence, I don't think it has the same value anymore. In today's nuclear environment, the 10 or so "state actors" who posse nuclear weapons, only a couple are likely to use them in reality. I've always said "Deterrence only works if you are willing to use the item upon which it's based" and to this point in history, the US is the only one to do that. We are also the only one to show that nuclear weapons are not necessary to dominate the world (mostly). A lot of that sentiment is changing though. For starters, China is growing in economic power and probably more importantly, nuclear weapons use by the lessor actors is no longer considered a "deterrence" weapon.Because they can use that increased capability as political leverage and there's nothing that anyone can/will do about it.
I respectfully disagree on several points. I did screw up when I became confused. Pretty easy at age 74. I decided to leave the forum for a week or so, which I did. But I still cannot reply in the Ukraine thread. With regard to the mainstream reporting on the importance of Bakhmut, I respectfully suggest the English speaking peoples are being (understandably) misled by their media and governments.You weren't banned from the thread. You made statements and, when questioned, were unableto provide evidence to substantiate them. You decided to leave the thread.
I agree that attacking Bakhmut makes no strategic sense as has been reported in UK news (see link to Sky News on other thread). The prevailing view is that its an action by Wagner Group for internal political reasons rather than an important military objective. Ukrainian advances to the north of Bakhmut have already made it militarily insignificant.
And I would, happily, remain there, forever . . .We won’t be bombed into the Stone Age; we’ll be taken back to the early to mid 20th century, but with 21st century knowledge.
[snip] I for one wouldn't appreciate the end of humanity, despite its problems and miseries. [/snip]
Putin is teaching a masters level class in that.Back at RAF Staff College the explanation was very clear. Policy is always to always to avoid first use HOWEVER never rule it out as an option. If your enemies know how you're going to act they know exactly how far they can push you and your advanatege is lost. Its best that your enemies are left uncertain about how you will behave. That's the key to deterrence.
Since I'm 74 and none of the younger males in my extended family have seen fit to reproduce, my own death in WW3 or otherwise can be seen in a calmer context. Sure, WW3 would be a real inconvenience or an active horror for most people still trying to survive and flourish in life. When it comes, I'll be among the first to die since I live only 25 miles from the nations biggest store of atom bombs - sub base Kitsap.I wholeheartedly agree. While I believe that most on TRF today will move on within 1 second to 100 years, I have no clue when any of us will no longer be part of the world and reserve +/-10% tolerance.
I absolutely don't want any form of WW3 or terminal [enter the issue here - zero politics] issues to wipe out humanity, I would love to see humanity in general chill out a bit and quit screwing stuff up as much and as quickly as we seem to be doing. While I don't seek out news/videos about whatever is the next emergency and I 'know' in general that every generation believes they are at the end times (maybe wrong, don't really care), but we really do seem to be trending to accelerating high risk activity on a large scale.
Specifically for the Ukraine vs Putin aggression, I believe most have read a book, seen a TV show or a movie where someone realizes they are not going to win the game of chess/checkers and simply flips the board, pieces everywhere and nobody knows what happened. For me, that is the most sketchy thing, as it has a feeling of 'taking the ball and going home' without the realization that home will also be 2500 deg when you get there. If the aggressor realizes that they will never make it home anyway, the consequences may be less of a consideration. Hope not, but that's my concern/uncertainty vs. a US/NATO planned action where 'everybody follows the rules.'
I do trust the government/military of the US are generally coordinated and are working with the best info they have and I believe they are operating in the best interest of our population first and general welfare second while other concerns become third and so on. No clue how correct I am one those assumptions, but it is where I am today and have been for quite a large period of my life.
As I have become more focused on nature (deer, squirrels, rabbits, cats etc.) I have the belief that humanity is a gigantic cancer on the overall well-being of the ecosystem we have. Not saying to wipe out humanity, but the flip side is that all the cool and amazing things we've done (as well as some of the less ideal things) have had an impact on every other plant, animal, mineral etc. on this sphere and based on the history I believe to be true, a bunch of that has happened in more recent centuries than far prior centuries.
Maybe it will be the sun expiring, maybe it will be a huge asteroid or maybe it will be humans that end life on Earth. Maybe it will happen in my lifetime or maybe it will be a million years in the future - I have no clue, but I do pretty much feel like we are being assholes to every other plant, animal and mineral right now and it would be nice to stop arguing about various philosophies and fighting as much as we seem to do as humans.
Nobody knows their expiration date for sure, but at least we should hope for a future where the animals and plants can continue on vs. turning this planet into Venus. Hopefully we stick around as a species too.
Sandy.
Enter your email address to join: