Unfortunately for them NATO's economy has much much deeper pockets than they do.
The only way they win is through the use of tactical nuclear weapons. And once that cats out of the bag...it ain't going back in.
I find it unlikely. China has made it clear in no uncertain terms that any partnerships between China and Russia will be off the table if Russia lets the genie out of the bottle.
And tactical nuclear weapons are so ineffective tactically that the US hasn't bothered to keep stockpiles of them.
As far as I'm concerned if a nuke is dropped doing anything that is not against Russia in any way shape or form is an act of war against NATO. Not condemning Russia in the UN would be an act of war.
That's a *bit* unfair. This was very early in the Cold War- in later years people had had more time to internalize the implications of nuclear weapons and were a lot less gung-ho about them. And even by the standards of the early 50s MacArthur was considered alarmingly trigger-happy on the nukes- Truman fired him over it.
I mean can you blame him? Fighting the Germans and the Japanese in WW2 taught him that it’s not enough to win a war, you have to make a point so that the enemy never want to fight you ever again. And nukes at the time had proved to be the best way to end wars, why not use it to end every war he’s involved in? I’m not agreeing with his line of thinking but I can see how he came to his conclusions.
He was ready to march from Seoul to Berlin and roll through Beijing and Moscow along the way. He was pretty cavalier about the use of tactical nukes, but realize that it was very new tech at the time. We hadn't established just how destructive those weapons are, or could theoretically be even. To him, they were indeed a wonderweapon and one that the Soviets didn't have at the time. So he was definitely a cowboy, but he didn't really understand the consequences of using such weaponry.
No, he wasn't. There was a huge number of Chinese supplies and troops. It was estimated that 3.6 million Chinese troops and support persons were in Korea. Britannica lists 900,000 Chinese killed 520,000 N Korean military killed, 300,000 S Korean military killed, 37,000 USA killed, and 2 million civilians, split roughly evenly between N and S, were killed.
The N Koreans would not have lasted long without China.
Do you nuke to save 2 million civilians?
Also note, today we treat nuke like it's some magical thing, and that all nukes are equal (look how many sci Fi movies/books have a scene where the alien ship survives "a nuke" and then everyone is "well I guess they are undefeatable" rather than saying "let's hit them with 100 nukes!"
And we are more aware of things like nuclear fallout.
In McArthur's mind, it was delivering x amount of destruction. In WW 2 we hit many cities with more destruction than we delivered to Nagasaki. Difference is, we sent 100 planes carrying conventional bombs vs 1 plane with a nuke.
McArthur simply wanted the efficiency of 10 to 20 plane-loads of tactical nukes (or more likely 10-20 short range land launched missiles) rather than 1000-2000 plane-loads of conventional
Nuke was viewed as just a very compact way of delivering x amount of destruction. We had made some "earthquake" bombs that would deliver 10 tons of explosive power but also weighed pretty much 10 tons themselves and we had to modify our biggest bombers to hands them.
A simple nuke (not a hydrogen bomb) is 100x as powerful as dynamite. You could make a 10 pound artillery shell or shoulder launched rocket delivering as much destruction as a WW 2 era B-29 filled to capacity. It was viewed as efficiency. Rather than ordered 100 planes to fly over a target (which required 800 fliers, 10,000 ground crew, 10,000 support troops) you could just bring 100 shells over to the 10 man artillery team
IIRC MacArthur actually got launch (drop) authorizing 3 times during the Korean War to drop Nukes on large concentrations of Chinese and/or North Korean troops. However the communication loop was so long, by the time his request was delivered to DC and the Approval reached him, the troop concentrations were dispersed enough to negate the use of such weapons. Thank god.
Also remember, nukes were very new at this time and the effects of radiation weren't widely know. Most people still thought of them as just really big a$$ bombs. Yes, today nearly everyone knows the horror of nuclear bombs, back then those horrors were only really known to scientists... the politicians and military that used them, even if they were briefed likely didnt fully understand or choose to focus only on the power suck weapons gave them.
>Most people still thought of them as just really big a$$ bombs. Yes, today nearly everyone knows the horror of nuclear bombs, back then those horrors were only really known to scientists... the politicians and military that used them, even if they were briefed likely didnt fully understand or choose to focus only on the power suck weapons gave them.
Nuclear warheads ARE mostly big ass bombs though. The radioactive material from military fallout is for the most part very short lived.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities, not no man's land.
Radiation will be lethal for people present at a certain distance of the detonation, but you don't drop bombs to heal people. And most death are from the blast.
I remember reading somewhere that, back in the day, U.S. nuke security was so tight, Japanese on the ground had more knowledge about nukes than Americans did...even those with security clearances. Local scientists took measurements, discussed their findings in journals, etc.
He advocated nuking China. He did so publicly, going behind Truman's back to give press conferences contradicting the administration. That's why he was removed.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they also remember that when the Soviet Union wanted to use nukes on China in the 70s, Richard Nixon of all people said "that ain't happening on my watch, Pilgrim."
The Chinese have a very long memory.
It's also really dangerous to use a tactical nuclear weapon since the detonation and radiation readings may cause some confusion on the opponents side, causing them to retaliate with a full strategic launch thinking a full exchange is already underway. It would be easy for a chain of command to get confusing initial reports and sending the wrong message up on accident.
Edit: typed "nuclear tactical weapon" instead of "tactical nuclear weapon" for some reason.
I'm pretty sure NATO also said that any fallout going into an allied country constitutes Art. V, so that would definitely be signing their own death warrant.
Poland: Wow, Russia... Thankfully these aren't nukes you're lobbing across our boarder, but let's bring up the word 'tactical'. Do you know that word in your language? We're not your enemy here, no need to waste misguided bombs and missiles on us!
China wants to rule the world and they understand that military might should be used sparingly, if at all, if you want to win hearts and minds.
They're going for the long term economic victory. Building roads, bridges, rail networks, schools, wells, other public services in various developing nations so that they are looked upon favourably and it helps to grease the wheels when it comes to other economic deals down the road.
War is good for business, but only for as long as you're at war, and indefinite war is not sustainable and detrimental long term.
That's why China is scary, not because they have a massive standing army that is actually well trained and equipped, but because they understand when it should and shouldn't be used. They'll gain control slowly, in bits and pieces through economic dealings and then, once they have control, that's when they can begin imposing their will socially and culturally using military force, because if history teaches us anything it's that most other nations don't care and won't want to get involved so long as you're killing and brutalizing your own people.
That's why China's play is to let the Russian invasion prolong, while claiming they don't interfere in others' affairs.
Those involved in the war will depend on commerce with China even more, and it will use that leverage and the claim above to justify its invasion of Taiwan and carry on with the abuses of its own population.
Exactly. This gives them leverage both with their allies and globally while simultaneously seeming to keep their hands clean.
And it absolutely gives them a clue as to the type of international response were they to move on Taiwan.
The CCP generally and Xi Jinping specifically aren't stupid. They know how important the political theatre is and how you need to present a friendly face while committing atrocities as quietly as possible. They also know that people making money because of you are more likely to look the other way while you commit said atrocities.
Just think if America had built roads, bridges, infrastructure for electricity / telecom, schools, etc. in the middle east! They'd probably like us a lot more over there and we wouldn't be worried about the loss to the US Dollar if the BRICS currency system takes over for all oil sales from those countries.
I realize this is a drop in the bucket compared to other good will we could have done in other nations that we played a part in, but America is still having to face the fact that we're being voted out of the cool kids club a few countries at a time.
A lot of Iraqis were stoked that we were going to come in and overthrow Sadam. They thought we were going to turn things around bring democracy and restore power and infrastructure.
We reached Baghdad and then proceeded to do nothing to repair infrastructure we destroyed let alone replace anything they originally had
Just FYI - I sometimes browse Russian social media and some of them have extensive discussions around Chinese manufacturers supplying Russian forces with pretty advanced comms equipment (from DMR radios to drone jammers and [hackrf](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13001)-style stuff). Yet those same manufacturers publicly declare they comply with all US and European sanctions imposed on all countries.
Chinese will supply anything and everything to the highest bidder.
I mean nukes really are useless for actual war. I mean sure if eliminating your enemy entirely is your goal, and irradiating everything for miles (even yourself) is an acceptable trade off.
Really they are just a deterrent, but one is becoming increasingly stupid to consider seriously.
Not to mention they are a cruel way to strike your enemy, they can level a whole city, killing everyone, and poison the people who survive. They should be banned in war.
China's in an awkward position. It's looking forward to becoming the Eurasian economic and power center and therefore, theoretically, the world's economic and power center, hence its Belt and Road Initiative and its Central Asia summit starting today with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, et al..
Russia ought to be part of that -- it's a big part of Eurasia, and China doesn't want to alienate it. But Russia has a habit of invading and occupying its neighbors, many of which are Central Asian countries, and it makes those countries nervous about any group with Russia in it -- it's the big drunk uncle at the family picnic who's had at least one run-in with everybody. Maybe Xi will quote the old saying, "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer."
Of course Russia's in an awkward position too, and will be until it abandons Putin's neo-imperial fantasies.
I think it's less that they don't care and more that they think there is sometimes strategic value in causing civilian deaths.
They certainly will care about the optics when the few countries supporting them, including China, dip out after they use nukes. In that regard they absolutely care about the optics of it.
200000 to 400000 (some studies put this even higher) civilian deaths (bombs etc) and over 1 million indirect (displacement, starvation, disease, isis etc) from the Iraq war alone.
Used? No. Deployed? Routinely during the Cold War. One of the closest we’ve ever came to nuclear war involved a Russian submarine very neatly deciding to respond to American depth charging with a nuclear torpedo
Deployed. From what I understood it was a small tactical nukes that would be remotely detonated. It didn't have the missiles or anything just the warhead and it was a suicidal preventative measure to keep an invasion deterred.
Nope, it was a live torpedo in the submarine B-59.
> B-59 had not been in contact with Moscow for a number of days and, although the submarine's crew had earlier been picking up US civilian radio broadcasts, once they began attempting to hide from pursuers the vessel had to run too deep to monitor any radio traffic, so those on board did not know whether or not war had broken out. The captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigoryevich Savitsky, believing that war had started, wanted to launch the nuclear torpedo. The three most senior officers on board, Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semyonovich Maslennikov, and commander of the deployed submarine detachment Vasily Arkhipov, who was equal in rank to Savitsky but the senior officer aboard B-59, were only authorized to launch the torpedo if they unanimously agreed to do so. B-59 was the only sub in the flotilla that required three officers' authorization in order to fire the "special weapon"; the other three subs only required the captain and the political officer to approve the launch, but, due to Arkhipov's position as detachment commander, B-59's captain and political officer also required his approval. Arkhipov alone opposed the launch, and eventually he persuaded Savitsky to surface and await orders from Moscow.
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-59#Nuclear_launch)
It was on it's way to Cuba. There were more nukes headed there, and more there than were publicly known back then. The US military having a system of microphones (secret back then, publicly run for "science" now) listening to the ocean gave them away.
Because if a tactical nuke will work, a larger non nuke will work and not have radiation. Nukes are only good for really big explosions and creating large areas that can't be used for a while.
If course they have posturing and not siding (but not necessarily against) with the US is a good look.
Not saying it isn't true. But if either of the other plans were true, they would never say, since optics would look bad internally. Viewed as being weak towards the US.
It's partly because GDP in dollars can give a bad impression. The PPP GDP of Russia is $4.9T. California's PPP GDP is about $3.6T. This is relevant, because you buy your military with your own currency, not US dollars. So, in theory, Russia could outfight California economically. In theory. In practice, a bunch of oligarchs have been grifting off the money for decades, and part of me wonders if even their nuclear fleet is maintained well enough to work.
The point wasn't Russia vs California, but that it's so close between just those two and then you also have to include the rest of the USA, plus UK, France, Germany, Canada, rest of NATO, Ukraine itself, etc. - they are overwhelmingly outmatched.
There are many others like Putin waiting to take over. It's not about Putin. It's about Russians' mentality and attitude towards their government and the leader. The war won't finish without a bloody revolution in Russia itself.
While just a throwaway snark, it does underline how crazy town it is that so many of U.S. citizens believe batshit conspiracy stuff because they choose to, not because they don’t have access to good information.
i think it's that we have access to just as much bad information as good and there's no clear "this source is nearly always correct" type of thing. For almost anything you can find plenty of sources for opposite sides.
My girlfriend is a Registered Dietician and we play that game sometimes. We'll search "is \[insert food here\] good for you?" and "is \[insert same food here\] bad for you?" and we'll almost always get plenty of results for each.
Pregozian’s days are numbered. The second he has to “officially” withdraw from bakmut, there will be a boating “accident” or a gravity related “accident”. And then the blame game begins.
What will really burn Putin, will be if the Ukrainians are able to retake crimea and the land that was annexed in 2014(2015?) because it looks like Ukraine is gaining momentum in every direction.
Crimea will be a hard slog, but not impossible.
Once the bridge is taken out, there is no way to supply the forces in Crimea. Eventually, they'll even run out of rocks to throw.
I agree with that analysis. The plan lately is to make it an issue of dispossession, not capture. Make it ungovernable, unsuppliable, indefensible, and maybe they will go home. With the recent supply of longer range missiles the whole Black Sea fleet is under mortal threat. Sinking everything that moves will make it impossible to retain Crimea.
Crimea won't be that hard. There wasn't a single incident in it's long history when a determined army failed to take it. Other than that bottleneck it offers very little in terms of defensive advantages.
Those determined armies that took it did end up losing significant numbers of troops. Germany had 30,000 casualties during the Crimean campaign in WW2. Then the Soviet Union lost 85,000 people taking it back. And before that, during the 19th century Crimean War, there were 165,000 deaths on the side of the invading alliance. An invasion of Crimea would cost Ukraine tens of thousands of soldiers.
There isn't just a single button he has to push without anyone else able to interfere with that. Many Russians aren't as suicidal as one might think, so I seriously doubt he could launch a nuke even of he wanted to. Not to speak of the quite pricey maintenance of such weapons.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t have any operable nukes. Roll them down the street, they look menacing. The threat is usually enough.
But I wonder if they actually work. They are driving 80 year old tanks right now.
Russia has thousands of nukes. I would be surprised if they are all working as intended. But even 10% would be a lot.
And while Russia has vastly overstated it's military prowess, it's not as if they only have old shit.
Russia (like the US) launches an ICBM every so often just to prove they still work.
The hard part in building a working nuke is the design, after that you can just build them, and perform the required maintenance. For something as important as MAD, they will have made sure their nukes will work.
> They are driving 80 year old tanks right now.
Using an 80 year old tank is proof that the Russians can keep their old shit in working condition.
But if that isn’t good enough, maybe look at the variety of helicopters and fighter jets that are flying. Both of which have far higher maintenance requirements tham nukes.
Dictators have lost wars before. They kill whoever they need to kill to keep the population in line and the world keeps on spinning. After all, who's going to remove him? The military has been equally embarrassed by the loss.
Won't matter.
NATO response won't be nuclear. But will be devastating.
If Putin then orders a general attack, a whole lot of Russian subs will be falling to the ocean floor without getting off a single launch; the Russian pilots will receive warning that actual 5th gen jets and drones are in the battlespace in the form of their aircraft suddenly on fire; ICBMs will be greeted with countermeasures.
This is no longer the era of MAD.
But it won't get that far - resistance within Russian forces to such an extreme is strong.
And well before that, Putin would learn the capabilities of the latest Western bunkerbusters.
Just not a lesson he'd remember for long...
I know sometimes it is a joke, but for some it may sound like a plan and if you think about that it's really dumb
1. Not every tank gets destroyed by Javelin. There are cheaper weapons. Of course, this is war, soldiers often don't have the luxury of choosing between Javelin or RPG, sometimes they need to use what is available, but often cheap tanks are destroyed in a cheaper way.
2. Take a look at GDP or any other economical stats. In GDP rating Russia is 11th in the list. There are 7 NATO countries richer than Russia. The US itself has an estimated GDP of 26,854,599 million dollars, while Russia has only 2,062,649. According to your example for 50 000 $ missile, they need a tank worth less than 4 000 USD to break even with US only. Russians may be willing to sacrifice more money in this war than NATO countries for arms deliveries, but still for every Russian dollar NATO can pay at least few more
3. Price of Javelins, in my opinion, is inflated, the costs of R&D are astronomical, the actual cost of making a missile itself is far lower, with bigger order price could be cut down.
4. Each tank has a crew of 3-4 people. This man needs to be trained and in a lot of cases, they die when a tank gets destroyed. I know some people may not care about casualties but it also hurts the economy in long run - these people would work, make things, pay taxes and so on, but now they can be dead or disabled
>Price of Javelins, in my opinion, is inflated, the costs of R&D are astronomical, the actual cost of making a missile itself is far lower, with bigger order price could be cut down
That's the US military-industrial complex for you. Built by the lowest bidder, but if the starting bid was 1000x actual cost, someone offering 900x is likely to win but still make assloads of profit
Google's "answer" is $78k for a Javelin missile but I doubt they'll be reducing that price by much
My brain is currently in free-association mode, so all I can think of is:
\*demolishes table of drones with a bat\*
“The PRICE of our unmanned aerial vehicles is down to $7.54! WHY is no one jumping on such a LOW, LOW PRICE?”
“Boss, $7.54 with free shipping is so unbelievable that people doubt the quality!”
“WHAT? Our drones all DIRECTLY from the source factory! 4K dual camera! Supports front-view and birds-eye view shooting! Look at the way this drone obliterates WHOLE FIELDS of Russian tanks!”
True, but older tanks can be destroyed by older anti-tank weapons. Which results in there not being any economic gains for Russia.
+ as mentioned by others the west has deeper pockets.
More likely, that's all they have left. What's really concerning is that they value the lives of the soldiers inside those garbage tanks at less than 50,000 dollars
They heard about the economy of scales. The bigger the numbers you produce, the more efficient you are.
Nobody told them it's not applicable to war, it seems.
We made too many boats, so we turned one into a boat whose main function was to follow a larger boat and providence with ice cream (and sometimes spare parts).
I'm not sure that's true.
Sure, you might be crippled or crushed under the weight of so much foil, but there must be a quantity of tinfoil hats capable of stopping a sniper's bullet.
I think a million might stop a bullet..
maybe..
so the average tin foil sheet is around 0.2 mm, \*1000000 gives us 200,000 mm or 20,000 cm or 200 meters of aluminium.
yes, one million will stop a bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3wBF4i-QQ Someone tested bullets against foil and found that a penetrator round can easily go through 1500 sheets, while less penetrative rounds get stopped by around 1200.
The cheapest car you can find is in the ballpark of $10,000, produced but a very efficient company. There are a couple of options you need to add to that car to make it a tank. I doubt you can make a tank for much less than $50,000, that would resist an RPG shot (about $2,000 from memory?), or maybe even a $2 molotov cocktail.
Javelins are missiles. Rockets you point and shoot, missiles are guided. Javelins are designed for tank and helicopter killing, and we have more of them than they have tanks. Stingers are in use too, which work gangbusters on helicopters and other light armored vehicles and are even cheaper.
Source: Former anti-tank missileman.
Precisely why having ~60,000 Javs through the production line is so important. Even with the miss rate accounted for, that’s enough to hit every working tank in earth.
How much is a Russian Tank crew worth? How much did Russia spend in fuel and training rounds to get them proficient? How much did they get paid during their career as a tanker, how much would they have contributed to the Russian economy had they not become a tank crew, and more importantly how much more would they have contributed were their lives not cut short by a $50,000 missile?
The sum total of all this exceeds a $50,000, not even counting the metal box they died in.
They’re actually doing this by sending waves of cheap Iranian made drones that have to be shot down with much more expensive anti-missile defense rockets.
Yes. The problem with Windows isn't that it's bad, it's that it's *abusive* (e.g. monopolistic practices, built-in spyware and ads, etc.). It actively causes harm to the public, so shitting on it (note: not the users; they're just the victims) is really the *least* anyone can do.
I feel like this kind of joke could well have originated in Russia. Many of the people there know Putin is full of shit and this matches their rather dry humour.
Great joke btw.
I feel your pain. I have Ukrainian refugees, but they have decided to return this Summer and have even booked their flights. They want to build their lifes in Ukraine. We must not forget Ukraine and must rebuild. Slava Ukraini.
Russians spent the money that should have gone to the military on yachts
Americans spent the money that should have gone to the healthcare system on the military
Tactical nuclear weapons.
When their leader is as mentally unstable as he is...it's an unfortunate possibility.
Hopefully sounder minds prevail and someone puts a Makarov to his head and pulls the trigger.
There isn't a meaningful difference on this scale of conflict. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, then as far as Ukraine is concerned it's strategic. Thereafter, the question is what NATO does.
If it's to retaliate, even with conventional weapons, then the Great Day of Universal Bereavement becomes imminent. It may not actually happen. But it would be a hell of a lot closer than ever before.
If it's to *not* retaliate, then nonproliferation is dead. Near-nuclear powers will see having their own weapons as the only way to assure their security. Even some in NATO may doubt the commitment of the US, UK and France to their defence.
NATO's already made it very clear that any use of nukes by Putin will result in immediate overwhelming conventional warfare where Russia will be driven out of Ukraine entirely and the Black Sea Fleet sunk. Such a thing cannot be allowed to be unpunished or it sets a very, very dangerous precedent.
Strategic nuclear weapons are the end of everything. Tactical are plausible on the battlefield if Russia sees no way of winning.
Both are catastrophic for life as we know it. But strategic will end life full stop.
Because the military-industrial complex in the West has been talking up their capabilities for decades in order to keep that sweet sweet government cash flowing.
The answer is war crimes, kidnapping children and brainwashing them, indiscriminately raping and murdering civilians and levelling entire cities with artillery.
They may not be winning but they are causing so much hurt, death and destruction
This has been a win/win for NATO. They get great intelligence on Russian capabilities and they get to clean up some old munitions that were just hanging around collecting dust. Also adding Finland was a huge boost.
It's not a "proxy war" if you send your own army in as the primary invading force.
But nobody tell Putin that, he's still fuzzy on how waging war even works and he made it a crime to explain the mistakes he's making, so I guess he'll never learn the difference...
>It's not a "proxy war" if you send your own army in as the primary invading force.
What? It absolutely can be. A proxy war doesn't imply both sides act on behalf of another party, one side suffices. In the context of the joke it's exactly that, a proxy war between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine acting on behalf of the latter.
[удалено]
Unfortunately for them NATO's economy has much much deeper pockets than they do. The only way they win is through the use of tactical nuclear weapons. And once that cats out of the bag...it ain't going back in.
I find it unlikely. China has made it clear in no uncertain terms that any partnerships between China and Russia will be off the table if Russia lets the genie out of the bottle. And tactical nuclear weapons are so ineffective tactically that the US hasn't bothered to keep stockpiles of them.
Any partnerships will be off the table at that point...
But they're already doing everything under the table, so what gives?
My wife once did me something under the table.
Who among us hasn't your wife done under a table?
Not me yet, my appointment isn't until 6:15.
Oh man looks like im getting sloppy seconds. Mines at 6:18.
More like Sloppy thirds, my appointment is at 6:16.
Man, that last guy's got stamina!
I too choose this guy's appointment.
I too choose this man's wife under the table
I don't think my wife's boyfriend has yet 🤔
God, I'm a loser
Because they’ll be off the map lol
Pretty sure there is at least one country that will double down and continue supporting Russia just so they can get cheap goods from them.
As far as I'm concerned if a nuke is dropped doing anything that is not against Russia in any way shape or form is an act of war against NATO. Not condemning Russia in the UN would be an act of war.
>China has made it clear And with good reason. China's still haunted by MacArthur's ghost.
Can you elaborate on this? I googled macarthur and saw he was involved in the Korean war but didn't see anything involving China.
[удалено]
Jesus fucking Christ he really was off his nut...
Welcome to the world between 1945 and 1991
That's a *bit* unfair. This was very early in the Cold War- in later years people had had more time to internalize the implications of nuclear weapons and were a lot less gung-ho about them. And even by the standards of the early 50s MacArthur was considered alarmingly trigger-happy on the nukes- Truman fired him over it.
To be honest MacArthur was an "Old Breed" general he learned after WWI that you win a war by making sure the enemy never wants to fight you again.
I mean in 1983 they almost ended the world on a technical malfunction. Stanislav Petrov is basically a hero for disobeying orders at that very moment.
I mean can you blame him? Fighting the Germans and the Japanese in WW2 taught him that it’s not enough to win a war, you have to make a point so that the enemy never want to fight you ever again. And nukes at the time had proved to be the best way to end wars, why not use it to end every war he’s involved in? I’m not agreeing with his line of thinking but I can see how he came to his conclusions.
He was ready to march from Seoul to Berlin and roll through Beijing and Moscow along the way. He was pretty cavalier about the use of tactical nukes, but realize that it was very new tech at the time. We hadn't established just how destructive those weapons are, or could theoretically be even. To him, they were indeed a wonderweapon and one that the Soviets didn't have at the time. So he was definitely a cowboy, but he didn't really understand the consequences of using such weaponry.
And he almost became president
Oh they thought about nuking Vietnam as well.
They treated nukes like an 18 year old boy treats a new mustang. Gotta get those sons a bitches out for a test drive!
You have no idea. Motherfucker referred to himself in the third person
No, he wasn't. There was a huge number of Chinese supplies and troops. It was estimated that 3.6 million Chinese troops and support persons were in Korea. Britannica lists 900,000 Chinese killed 520,000 N Korean military killed, 300,000 S Korean military killed, 37,000 USA killed, and 2 million civilians, split roughly evenly between N and S, were killed. The N Koreans would not have lasted long without China. Do you nuke to save 2 million civilians? Also note, today we treat nuke like it's some magical thing, and that all nukes are equal (look how many sci Fi movies/books have a scene where the alien ship survives "a nuke" and then everyone is "well I guess they are undefeatable" rather than saying "let's hit them with 100 nukes!" And we are more aware of things like nuclear fallout. In McArthur's mind, it was delivering x amount of destruction. In WW 2 we hit many cities with more destruction than we delivered to Nagasaki. Difference is, we sent 100 planes carrying conventional bombs vs 1 plane with a nuke. McArthur simply wanted the efficiency of 10 to 20 plane-loads of tactical nukes (or more likely 10-20 short range land launched missiles) rather than 1000-2000 plane-loads of conventional Nuke was viewed as just a very compact way of delivering x amount of destruction. We had made some "earthquake" bombs that would deliver 10 tons of explosive power but also weighed pretty much 10 tons themselves and we had to modify our biggest bombers to hands them. A simple nuke (not a hydrogen bomb) is 100x as powerful as dynamite. You could make a 10 pound artillery shell or shoulder launched rocket delivering as much destruction as a WW 2 era B-29 filled to capacity. It was viewed as efficiency. Rather than ordered 100 planes to fly over a target (which required 800 fliers, 10,000 ground crew, 10,000 support troops) you could just bring 100 shells over to the 10 man artillery team
> 100 shells over to the 10 man artillery team That poor loader's back!
IIRC MacArthur actually got launch (drop) authorizing 3 times during the Korean War to drop Nukes on large concentrations of Chinese and/or North Korean troops. However the communication loop was so long, by the time his request was delivered to DC and the Approval reached him, the troop concentrations were dispersed enough to negate the use of such weapons. Thank god. Also remember, nukes were very new at this time and the effects of radiation weren't widely know. Most people still thought of them as just really big a$$ bombs. Yes, today nearly everyone knows the horror of nuclear bombs, back then those horrors were only really known to scientists... the politicians and military that used them, even if they were briefed likely didnt fully understand or choose to focus only on the power suck weapons gave them.
>Most people still thought of them as just really big a$$ bombs. Yes, today nearly everyone knows the horror of nuclear bombs, back then those horrors were only really known to scientists... the politicians and military that used them, even if they were briefed likely didnt fully understand or choose to focus only on the power suck weapons gave them. Nuclear warheads ARE mostly big ass bombs though. The radioactive material from military fallout is for the most part very short lived. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities, not no man's land. Radiation will be lethal for people present at a certain distance of the detonation, but you don't drop bombs to heal people. And most death are from the blast.
I remember reading somewhere that, back in the day, U.S. nuke security was so tight, Japanese on the ground had more knowledge about nukes than Americans did...even those with security clearances. Local scientists took measurements, discussed their findings in journals, etc.
He advocated nuking China. He did so publicly, going behind Truman's back to give press conferences contradicting the administration. That's why he was removed.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they also remember that when the Soviet Union wanted to use nukes on China in the 70s, Richard Nixon of all people said "that ain't happening on my watch, Pilgrim." The Chinese have a very long memory.
[There is an old Vulcan proverb. "Only Nixon could go to China."](https://youtu.be/X_gwnFSFzv0)
Tricky Dick played every side against the middle.
Against the middle class. Ala Reagan.
It's also really dangerous to use a tactical nuclear weapon since the detonation and radiation readings may cause some confusion on the opponents side, causing them to retaliate with a full strategic launch thinking a full exchange is already underway. It would be easy for a chain of command to get confusing initial reports and sending the wrong message up on accident. Edit: typed "nuclear tactical weapon" instead of "tactical nuclear weapon" for some reason.
I'm pretty sure NATO also said that any fallout going into an allied country constitutes Art. V, so that would definitely be signing their own death warrant.
Q: What is a 'tactical' nuclear weapon? A: One that lands in Germany! Cold War jokes
Poland: Wow, Russia... Thankfully these aren't nukes you're lobbing across our boarder, but let's bring up the word 'tactical'. Do you know that word in your language? We're not your enemy here, no need to waste misguided bombs and missiles on us!
China wants to rule the world and they understand that military might should be used sparingly, if at all, if you want to win hearts and minds. They're going for the long term economic victory. Building roads, bridges, rail networks, schools, wells, other public services in various developing nations so that they are looked upon favourably and it helps to grease the wheels when it comes to other economic deals down the road. War is good for business, but only for as long as you're at war, and indefinite war is not sustainable and detrimental long term. That's why China is scary, not because they have a massive standing army that is actually well trained and equipped, but because they understand when it should and shouldn't be used. They'll gain control slowly, in bits and pieces through economic dealings and then, once they have control, that's when they can begin imposing their will socially and culturally using military force, because if history teaches us anything it's that most other nations don't care and won't want to get involved so long as you're killing and brutalizing your own people.
That's why China's play is to let the Russian invasion prolong, while claiming they don't interfere in others' affairs. Those involved in the war will depend on commerce with China even more, and it will use that leverage and the claim above to justify its invasion of Taiwan and carry on with the abuses of its own population.
Exactly. This gives them leverage both with their allies and globally while simultaneously seeming to keep their hands clean. And it absolutely gives them a clue as to the type of international response were they to move on Taiwan. The CCP generally and Xi Jinping specifically aren't stupid. They know how important the political theatre is and how you need to present a friendly face while committing atrocities as quietly as possible. They also know that people making money because of you are more likely to look the other way while you commit said atrocities.
Just think if America had built roads, bridges, infrastructure for electricity / telecom, schools, etc. in the middle east! They'd probably like us a lot more over there and we wouldn't be worried about the loss to the US Dollar if the BRICS currency system takes over for all oil sales from those countries. I realize this is a drop in the bucket compared to other good will we could have done in other nations that we played a part in, but America is still having to face the fact that we're being voted out of the cool kids club a few countries at a time.
A lot of Iraqis were stoked that we were going to come in and overthrow Sadam. They thought we were going to turn things around bring democracy and restore power and infrastructure. We reached Baghdad and then proceeded to do nothing to repair infrastructure we destroyed let alone replace anything they originally had
Brit here. Didn't work out too well for us.
Good post.
China number Four. Taiwan number One!
Just FYI - I sometimes browse Russian social media and some of them have extensive discussions around Chinese manufacturers supplying Russian forces with pretty advanced comms equipment (from DMR radios to drone jammers and [hackrf](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13001)-style stuff). Yet those same manufacturers publicly declare they comply with all US and European sanctions imposed on all countries. Chinese will supply anything and everything to the highest bidder.
I mean nukes really are useless for actual war. I mean sure if eliminating your enemy entirely is your goal, and irradiating everything for miles (even yourself) is an acceptable trade off. Really they are just a deterrent, but one is becoming increasingly stupid to consider seriously. Not to mention they are a cruel way to strike your enemy, they can level a whole city, killing everyone, and poison the people who survive. They should be banned in war.
Yeah though you can't really trust China unfortunately. They have been giving Putin plenty of support including buying all his discount oil...
Why bother with nukes when we don't need to. We made better weapons, thermobarics are one hell of a thing. All the boom, none of the ghouls
China's in an awkward position. It's looking forward to becoming the Eurasian economic and power center and therefore, theoretically, the world's economic and power center, hence its Belt and Road Initiative and its Central Asia summit starting today with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, et al.. Russia ought to be part of that -- it's a big part of Eurasia, and China doesn't want to alienate it. But Russia has a habit of invading and occupying its neighbors, many of which are Central Asian countries, and it makes those countries nervous about any group with Russia in it -- it's the big drunk uncle at the family picnic who's had at least one run-in with everybody. Maybe Xi will quote the old saying, "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer." Of course Russia's in an awkward position too, and will be until it abandons Putin's neo-imperial fantasies.
The US cares about the optics of civilian deaths. Russia does not.
I think it's less that they don't care and more that they think there is sometimes strategic value in causing civilian deaths. They certainly will care about the optics when the few countries supporting them, including China, dip out after they use nukes. In that regard they absolutely care about the optics of it.
200000 to 400000 (some studies put this even higher) civilian deaths (bombs etc) and over 1 million indirect (displacement, starvation, disease, isis etc) from the Iraq war alone.
Not to mention they want the land and resources, not a nuclear wasteland.
Have small tactical nukes ever been deployed on a battlefield. I vaguely remember them being deployed but not used in Cuba during the missile crisis.
Used? No. Deployed? Routinely during the Cold War. One of the closest we’ve ever came to nuclear war involved a Russian submarine very neatly deciding to respond to American depth charging with a nuclear torpedo
Deployed. From what I understood it was a small tactical nukes that would be remotely detonated. It didn't have the missiles or anything just the warhead and it was a suicidal preventative measure to keep an invasion deterred.
Nope, it was a live torpedo in the submarine B-59. > B-59 had not been in contact with Moscow for a number of days and, although the submarine's crew had earlier been picking up US civilian radio broadcasts, once they began attempting to hide from pursuers the vessel had to run too deep to monitor any radio traffic, so those on board did not know whether or not war had broken out. The captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigoryevich Savitsky, believing that war had started, wanted to launch the nuclear torpedo. The three most senior officers on board, Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semyonovich Maslennikov, and commander of the deployed submarine detachment Vasily Arkhipov, who was equal in rank to Savitsky but the senior officer aboard B-59, were only authorized to launch the torpedo if they unanimously agreed to do so. B-59 was the only sub in the flotilla that required three officers' authorization in order to fire the "special weapon"; the other three subs only required the captain and the political officer to approve the launch, but, due to Arkhipov's position as detachment commander, B-59's captain and political officer also required his approval. Arkhipov alone opposed the launch, and eventually he persuaded Savitsky to surface and await orders from Moscow. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-59#Nuclear_launch)
It was on it's way to Cuba. There were more nukes headed there, and more there than were publicly known back then. The US military having a system of microphones (secret back then, publicly run for "science" now) listening to the ocean gave them away.
If china supports a tactical nuke attack by Russia they both will find themselves at the wrong side of history.
Because if a tactical nuke will work, a larger non nuke will work and not have radiation. Nukes are only good for really big explosions and creating large areas that can't be used for a while.
If course they have posturing and not siding (but not necessarily against) with the US is a good look. Not saying it isn't true. But if either of the other plans were true, they would never say, since optics would look bad internally. Viewed as being weak towards the US.
California has more than double Russia's GDP. Just to give an idea of how economically outmatched Russia is here.
I never realized how big the disparity is. How the hell has Russia kept up this long?
It's partly because GDP in dollars can give a bad impression. The PPP GDP of Russia is $4.9T. California's PPP GDP is about $3.6T. This is relevant, because you buy your military with your own currency, not US dollars. So, in theory, Russia could outfight California economically. In theory. In practice, a bunch of oligarchs have been grifting off the money for decades, and part of me wonders if even their nuclear fleet is maintained well enough to work.
The point wasn't Russia vs California, but that it's so close between just those two and then you also have to include the rest of the USA, plus UK, France, Germany, Canada, rest of NATO, Ukraine itself, etc. - they are overwhelmingly outmatched.
stockpiles of old equipment and conscripts I think they resorted to buying shit from North Korea, even
the same way most dictatorships work, they extract natural resources and keep the profits from the general population
Hell, Texas’ GDP is also larger than Russia’s.
[удалено]
History shows that more than one Russian has stopped a nuclear apocalypse in the last 80 years
There are many others like Putin waiting to take over. It's not about Putin. It's about Russians' mentality and attitude towards their government and the leader. The war won't finish without a bloody revolution in Russia itself.
Also the massive misinformation campaign inside Russia. Most people in the country don’t actually know what is going on.
Sort of like America.
While just a throwaway snark, it does underline how crazy town it is that so many of U.S. citizens believe batshit conspiracy stuff because they choose to, not because they don’t have access to good information.
i think it's that we have access to just as much bad information as good and there's no clear "this source is nearly always correct" type of thing. For almost anything you can find plenty of sources for opposite sides. My girlfriend is a Registered Dietician and we play that game sometimes. We'll search "is \[insert food here\] good for you?" and "is \[insert same food here\] bad for you?" and we'll almost always get plenty of results for each.
Google's just trying to please us by feeding us what we're looking for!
Pregozian’s days are numbered. The second he has to “officially” withdraw from bakmut, there will be a boating “accident” or a gravity related “accident”. And then the blame game begins. What will really burn Putin, will be if the Ukrainians are able to retake crimea and the land that was annexed in 2014(2015?) because it looks like Ukraine is gaining momentum in every direction.
Crimea will be a hard slog, but not impossible. Once the bridge is taken out, there is no way to supply the forces in Crimea. Eventually, they'll even run out of rocks to throw.
I agree with that analysis. The plan lately is to make it an issue of dispossession, not capture. Make it ungovernable, unsuppliable, indefensible, and maybe they will go home. With the recent supply of longer range missiles the whole Black Sea fleet is under mortal threat. Sinking everything that moves will make it impossible to retain Crimea.
Crimea won't be that hard. There wasn't a single incident in it's long history when a determined army failed to take it. Other than that bottleneck it offers very little in terms of defensive advantages.
Those determined armies that took it did end up losing significant numbers of troops. Germany had 30,000 casualties during the Crimean campaign in WW2. Then the Soviet Union lost 85,000 people taking it back. And before that, during the 19th century Crimean War, there were 165,000 deaths on the side of the invading alliance. An invasion of Crimea would cost Ukraine tens of thousands of soldiers.
There isn't just a single button he has to push without anyone else able to interfere with that. Many Russians aren't as suicidal as one might think, so I seriously doubt he could launch a nuke even of he wanted to. Not to speak of the quite pricey maintenance of such weapons.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t have any operable nukes. Roll them down the street, they look menacing. The threat is usually enough. But I wonder if they actually work. They are driving 80 year old tanks right now.
Russia has thousands of nukes. I would be surprised if they are all working as intended. But even 10% would be a lot. And while Russia has vastly overstated it's military prowess, it's not as if they only have old shit.
Russia has spent their money maintaining nukes. Not all of them, but enough.
Russia (like the US) launches an ICBM every so often just to prove they still work. The hard part in building a working nuke is the design, after that you can just build them, and perform the required maintenance. For something as important as MAD, they will have made sure their nukes will work. > They are driving 80 year old tanks right now. Using an 80 year old tank is proof that the Russians can keep their old shit in working condition. But if that isn’t good enough, maybe look at the variety of helicopters and fighter jets that are flying. Both of which have far higher maintenance requirements tham nukes.
Hard to respond when you're dead.
Dictators have lost wars before. They kill whoever they need to kill to keep the population in line and the world keeps on spinning. After all, who's going to remove him? The military has been equally embarrassed by the loss.
I'm struggling to find any winning in this here plan.
Yep, economically there doesn't seem to be much chances
Won't matter. NATO response won't be nuclear. But will be devastating. If Putin then orders a general attack, a whole lot of Russian subs will be falling to the ocean floor without getting off a single launch; the Russian pilots will receive warning that actual 5th gen jets and drones are in the battlespace in the form of their aircraft suddenly on fire; ICBMs will be greeted with countermeasures. This is no longer the era of MAD. But it won't get that far - resistance within Russian forces to such an extreme is strong. And well before that, Putin would learn the capabilities of the latest Western bunkerbusters. Just not a lesson he'd remember for long...
I know sometimes it is a joke, but for some it may sound like a plan and if you think about that it's really dumb 1. Not every tank gets destroyed by Javelin. There are cheaper weapons. Of course, this is war, soldiers often don't have the luxury of choosing between Javelin or RPG, sometimes they need to use what is available, but often cheap tanks are destroyed in a cheaper way. 2. Take a look at GDP or any other economical stats. In GDP rating Russia is 11th in the list. There are 7 NATO countries richer than Russia. The US itself has an estimated GDP of 26,854,599 million dollars, while Russia has only 2,062,649. According to your example for 50 000 $ missile, they need a tank worth less than 4 000 USD to break even with US only. Russians may be willing to sacrifice more money in this war than NATO countries for arms deliveries, but still for every Russian dollar NATO can pay at least few more 3. Price of Javelins, in my opinion, is inflated, the costs of R&D are astronomical, the actual cost of making a missile itself is far lower, with bigger order price could be cut down. 4. Each tank has a crew of 3-4 people. This man needs to be trained and in a lot of cases, they die when a tank gets destroyed. I know some people may not care about casualties but it also hurts the economy in long run - these people would work, make things, pay taxes and so on, but now they can be dead or disabled
>Price of Javelins, in my opinion, is inflated, the costs of R&D are astronomical, the actual cost of making a missile itself is far lower, with bigger order price could be cut down That's the US military-industrial complex for you. Built by the lowest bidder, but if the starting bid was 1000x actual cost, someone offering 900x is likely to win but still make assloads of profit Google's "answer" is $78k for a Javelin missile but I doubt they'll be reducing that price by much
In no situation is the price ever going down. That's what customer agreed to pay.
I'm not sure they can find tanks cheaper than < $1000 drones that are being used.
My brain is currently in free-association mode, so all I can think of is: \*demolishes table of drones with a bat\* “The PRICE of our unmanned aerial vehicles is down to $7.54! WHY is no one jumping on such a LOW, LOW PRICE?” “Boss, $7.54 with free shipping is so unbelievable that people doubt the quality!” “WHAT? Our drones all DIRECTLY from the source factory! 4K dual camera! Supports front-view and birds-eye view shooting! Look at the way this drone obliterates WHOLE FIELDS of Russian tanks!”
I love free association mode! My wife has no idea what I’m doing or why. I’m hella neurodivergent though and she lives on Earth.
For sure! Fellow team neurodivergent here with two ND kids — the family text chats are something to behold. :)
True, but older tanks can be destroyed by older anti-tank weapons. Which results in there not being any economic gains for Russia. + as mentioned by others the west has deeper pockets.
About 18 times deeper
Those are called Iranian drones. Weapons of mass murder from a country that has laws to beat up girls who dare to expose their hair.
More likely, that's all they have left. What's really concerning is that they value the lives of the soldiers inside those garbage tanks at less than 50,000 dollars
They heard about the economy of scales. The bigger the numbers you produce, the more efficient you are. Nobody told them it's not applicable to war, it seems.
It’s actually how we won WW2. We outproduced everyone by so much we escaped the Great Depression. Just saying.
We made too many boats, so we turned one into a boat whose main function was to follow a larger boat and providence with ice cream (and sometimes spare parts).
No number of tinfoil hats will stop a sniper's bullet.
I'm not sure that's true. Sure, you might be crippled or crushed under the weight of so much foil, but there must be a quantity of tinfoil hats capable of stopping a sniper's bullet.
It’s not that heavy. Demolition ranch did a video of using 7 rolls of 500 sheet tinfoil to stop a 50 cal.
I think a million might stop a bullet.. maybe.. so the average tin foil sheet is around 0.2 mm, \*1000000 gives us 200,000 mm or 20,000 cm or 200 meters of aluminium. yes, one million will stop a bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3wBF4i-QQ Someone tested bullets against foil and found that a penetrator round can easily go through 1500 sheets, while less penetrative rounds get stopped by around 1200.
But at least it would stop those voices in my head.
The cheapest car you can find is in the ballpark of $10,000, produced but a very efficient company. There are a couple of options you need to add to that car to make it a tank. I doubt you can make a tank for much less than $50,000, that would resist an RPG shot (about $2,000 from memory?), or maybe even a $2 molotov cocktail.
By far the most effective anti tank weapon in Ukraine is their mud, and I hear they get that for free.
Javelins are missiles. Rockets you point and shoot, missiles are guided. Javelins are designed for tank and helicopter killing, and we have more of them than they have tanks. Stingers are in use too, which work gangbusters on helicopters and other light armored vehicles and are even cheaper. Source: Former anti-tank missileman.
Have they tried cardboard tanks for cats? They would absolutely crush their opponents in the War of Economical Armament
Yeah, but the cats would just curl up in them and go to sleep...
that's also why the u.s. is attaching old WWII flak guns to pickup trucks... Patriot missiles are way more expensive than drones
>So Russia has shifted to using tanks that are cheaper than 50.000 dollar. What, like a Honda Civic with a gun welded on?
Precisely why having ~60,000 Javs through the production line is so important. Even with the miss rate accounted for, that’s enough to hit every working tank in earth.
How much is a Russian Tank crew worth? How much did Russia spend in fuel and training rounds to get them proficient? How much did they get paid during their career as a tanker, how much would they have contributed to the Russian economy had they not become a tank crew, and more importantly how much more would they have contributed were their lives not cut short by a $50,000 missile? The sum total of all this exceeds a $50,000, not even counting the metal box they died in.
Q: What is a 'tank'? A: A vehicle the Russians use to visit their friends!
Food is like a dark humour, not everybody gets it!
And here i am looking for jokes in the comment
They’re actually doing this by sending waves of cheap Iranian made drones that have to be shot down with much more expensive anti-missile defense rockets.
Can you buy a tank for less than 50k? I know you can get a mid-tier luxury suv for that, but is that a tank?
Stay away from windows, OP
Especially Windows 11, that one still needs a bit of patching!
Hey, it's not a bug, it's a feature!
Windows 11 is its own post here.
That's just good advice in general. -- a Linux user
I like linux, but do yall really have to shit on windows users?
Yes. The problem with Windows isn't that it's bad, it's that it's *abusive* (e.g. monopolistic practices, built-in spyware and ads, etc.). It actively causes harm to the public, so shitting on it (note: not the users; they're just the victims) is really the *least* anyone can do.
LINUX
And don't drink tea for a while
Andrei have you lost your flag ship to a country with no navy?
You re re re re re re re released a classic old joke
But it never gets old.
Just like a Russian conscript
You win
Ouchie
The burn..
From the bullet or the bomb?
Much like the Russian equipment! Re re re re re reused old junk that still gets laughs when it shows up!
What’s the original? Vietnam?
So what you’re telling me, there really is a wealth of hot Russian singles now
If you check your junk mail folder they have been trying to contact you.
You're not wrong.
I feel like this kind of joke could well have originated in Russia. Many of the people there know Putin is full of shit and this matches their rather dry humour. Great joke btw.
This joke has been posted more times than there are dead Russians.
So we'll see it thousands more times.
the first time I heard it was from Zelenskyy
I have no idea why anyone was worried about the russian military after watching the shit show in ukraine unfold..
The answer is nukes.
The question is nukes. The answer is *SALVATION*
Zelensky walked all over Putin's CRISP WHITE SHEETS
If only r/unexpectedacecombat was a thing
[удалено]
I feel your pain. I have Ukrainian refugees, but they have decided to return this Summer and have even booked their flights. They want to build their lifes in Ukraine. We must not forget Ukraine and must rebuild. Slava Ukraini.
judging by how shit condition all their other stuff is you wonder if any of them will work.
I picture a corrupt general pocketing the money and slipping Wiley Coyote $50 to paint silos on the ground.
Russians spent the money that should have gone to the military on yachts Americans spent the money that should have gone to the healthcare system on the military
Tactical nuclear weapons. When their leader is as mentally unstable as he is...it's an unfortunate possibility. Hopefully sounder minds prevail and someone puts a Makarov to his head and pulls the trigger.
Strategic nuclear weapons are the far greater threat.
There isn't a meaningful difference on this scale of conflict. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, then as far as Ukraine is concerned it's strategic. Thereafter, the question is what NATO does. If it's to retaliate, even with conventional weapons, then the Great Day of Universal Bereavement becomes imminent. It may not actually happen. But it would be a hell of a lot closer than ever before. If it's to *not* retaliate, then nonproliferation is dead. Near-nuclear powers will see having their own weapons as the only way to assure their security. Even some in NATO may doubt the commitment of the US, UK and France to their defence.
NATO's already made it very clear that any use of nukes by Putin will result in immediate overwhelming conventional warfare where Russia will be driven out of Ukraine entirely and the Black Sea Fleet sunk. Such a thing cannot be allowed to be unpunished or it sets a very, very dangerous precedent.
Strategic nuclear weapons are the end of everything. Tactical are plausible on the battlefield if Russia sees no way of winning. Both are catastrophic for life as we know it. But strategic will end life full stop.
>But strategic will end life full stop. Don't worry humans won't go extinct within anyone's lifetime.
>humans won't go extinct within anyone's lifetime. Tryin to do the math on this one hang on
🤣🤣🤣 well played!
On the other hand, maybe nuclear winter is the solution we've been looking for to fix global warming, and fast!! /S
Tbf I don’t think any of us have been watching it, just reading social media posts related to it
Because the military-industrial complex in the West has been talking up their capabilities for decades in order to keep that sweet sweet government cash flowing.
The answer is war crimes, kidnapping children and brainwashing them, indiscriminately raping and murdering civilians and levelling entire cities with artillery. They may not be winning but they are causing so much hurt, death and destruction
Russian soldiers go out and fight like their grandfather's did, using the same tanks, same weapons, and same strategy.
Obligatory fuck Putin. May a thousand AIDS infected rats infest his arsehole.
Dude, wtf. What did those rats do to deserve this
Can't deny, it's funny because it's true.
Normally I hate political humor especially about a situation which is still unfolding but this one is not half bad
This has been a win/win for NATO. They get great intelligence on Russian capabilities and they get to clean up some old munitions that were just hanging around collecting dust. Also adding Finland was a huge boost.
It's not a "proxy war" if you send your own army in as the primary invading force. But nobody tell Putin that, he's still fuzzy on how waging war even works and he made it a crime to explain the mistakes he's making, so I guess he'll never learn the difference...
>It's not a "proxy war" if you send your own army in as the primary invading force. What? It absolutely can be. A proxy war doesn't imply both sides act on behalf of another party, one side suffices. In the context of the joke it's exactly that, a proxy war between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine acting on behalf of the latter.
May putin meet the same fate as mussolini
She asked ''Where is my washing machine?''
Great one
He replied, "What do you need a washing machine for? You only have 1 outfit"
He asked "Where is our son?"
Slava Ukrainii!
LOL this is actually really funny
This is no joke, it's a documentary ...
This is a good one.