Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Back in 1945 nuclear weapons had just been invented and the USA was the only nation that had them.
There was no fear whatsoever that Japan or any of its allies would return the favour.
In the long run it saved many US servicemens lives and probably even a lot of Japanese civilians.

And I honestly believe it was a lesson mankind had to learn.
No-one knew of the devastating effect of nuclear weapons, nowadays there's barely a person on earth who doesn't understand the effects and implications of using nuclear weapons.

The thing is, if the USA betrays Ukraine - yes, that is exactly what I personally think it would be if they stop supplying aid and arms to them - anyone who has a nuclear weapon will believe they can hold the world, or the USA, to ransom by threatening the use of nuclear weapons if they don't get what they want.

As I said previously, its reasonable to assume that Russia will be helping both Iran and North Korea with their nuclear weapon programmes. As a result I'd be amazed if Japan and South Korea didn't seek to gain nuclear weapon capability.
Bear in mind also that their confidence in USA support would be severely dented in light of its failure to meet its obligations to Ukraine in accordance with The Budapest Memorandum.

And who knows who would follow suit?
Saudi Arabia, Brazil etc?

I don't see how any of that will benefit global security.

I know you are a clever and intelligent man, surely you can see that an isolated USA would not escape any sort of collateral damage or impact from such an escalation of nuclear proliferation?

Backing down to Putin because he's threatened to use nuclear weapons would be insanity.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Why, indeed?

So, then, maybe this US ballistic missile gambit ain't worth the gamble.

a reply to: Freeborn

"Backing down to Putin because he's threatened to use nuclear weapons would be insanity."

Yes. Who would be next on Putin's list, I wonder?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

They may be technically "ballistic" but ICBMs they are not.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Freeborn

"Backing down to Putin because he's threatened to use nuclear weapons would be insanity."

Yes. Who would be next on Putin's list, I wonder?

Any non-nuclear nation Russia considers a target.
Say hello to worldwide nuclear proliferation...which will all but guarantee hell on earth.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I think quite a few countries might want to join NATO.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I heard an interesting take this morning.

This can work in everyone’s favor soon if navigated properly.

You expect the Biden administration to navigate something military, properly?

I never said that.

The whole premise of my thought experiment is they’re gone soon.

I understand your thought experiment...BUT...When long-range ballistic missiles are detected inside the airspace of a nuclear superpower...retaliatory responses are made in milliseconds...not months.

Russia have been claiming the areas of Ukraine they've illegally annexed as official Russian territory and haven't struck back despite months/years of the areas being hit by Western ICBMs and Russia claiming such events would be an irreversible 'red line' so I doubt the outcome will be any different now.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I think quite a few countries might want to join NATO.

Like Ukraine?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Hardly if it is no longer a sovereign Country.

If nuked, I dare say membership for others might be fast tracked but it's all a guess.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Texastruth2

No im not.

Im supporting the side i know my bread is buttered.

And thats not, nor ever has been, Russia side up.

Ummm...and there you have it...not even realizing that it's...you...buttering their bread...

Must be something in the mist...



YouSir

a reply to: CarlLaFong

It's naïve to think that the Russian military hasn't already gamed this out.

And it's at least equally naive to think that neither have NATO and China.
China is as opposed to Russia using any sort of nuclear weapons as NATO is.

One quickly and strategically detonated battlefield nuke would likely cause Ukraine to surrender immediately.

Such a dangerous precedent to accept....there's no way could NATO allow that to go unanswered.....probably with the full backing and support of China.

After that...what will the rest of the free world do?

I have no idea what any politician would do.....I don't trust any of them.
But I know what I would do:
I'd sit down with Putin on a one-to-one basis and tell him as plainly as possible that as long as he pursues this senseless war I would continue supporting Ukraine with arms and aid. And then add a guarantee that no NATO forces would be actively engaged in Ukraine other than in advisory roles.

I would then tell him most sincerely and truthfully that my preferred option by far would be an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated settlement.

And then finish by looking at him straight in the eye and telling him as bluntly and firmly as possible that if he used any type of nuclear weapon be they tactical, strategic or whatever then Moscow will be obliterated in minutes.

But then again, I'm not a politician or a diplomat.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

They may be technically "ballistic" but ICBMs they are not.

Where did I say they were 'Intercontinental' (IC) Ballistic Missiles?
I'll have to find me a map...but rumor has it that Ukraine and Russia share not only a border...but a continent, as well.

Alternatively Trump will offer to close up shop unless all the dirty laundry Ukraine has on American politicians money laundering is handed over and when it is indeed handed over and brought to light he will make his phone call to Putin and Russia will go home and enjoy tariff free trade with the USA.

It’s international diplomacy at it’s finest 😂🤣

a reply to: ElitePlebeian2

a reply to: CarlLaFong

You didn't. But you did make a thing out of "ballistic missiles".

Bullets are ballistic, too.

a reply to: Freeborn

"But then again, I'm not a politician or a diplomat."

Probably for the best, mate 😜 😉

Perceptions have changed.

People have forgotten the devastation caused by nuclear weapons.


All they see is two cities that had nuclear bombs dropped on them once upon a time. We were told that nuclear weapons would make areas uninhabitable for centuries due to the radiation, but those cities are now major metro areas so surely nuclear weapons aren't really all that bad.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

You didn't. But you did make a thing out of "ballistic missiles".

Bullets are ballistic, too.

So were those nasty V-2s, you Brits were all too familiar with.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yes. I know.

a reply to: RickinVa

"People have forgotten the devastation caused by nuclear weapons."

I don't think so.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yes. I know.

So...not really just like a bullet, then.