Russia invades Ukraine - 6 - from 7 August 2024

Western countries won’t let tiny rogue nation states leverage geopolitical power with a real possibility they will use nukes. So, they will do whatever they can to prevent them becoming an accepted weapon of war. Whatever country tries to break that status quo will be either disarmed or destroyed, that’s just a fact

2 Likes

And you called me naive!

1 Like

Ping me when someone drops a nuke big boy

5 Likes

If someone drops a nuke, there might not be anymore pinging.

3 Likes

Ukraine also had no real choice but to start taking the other teritory, they needed to get russian troops away from the ukraine posts they were defending. Nato wont step foot inside Russia.

4 Likes

Russian losses per 10/1/25 reported by the Ukrainian General Staff.

+1830 men
+10 tanks
+32 AFVs
+24 artillery systems
+3 AD systems
+71 UAVs
+3 cruise missiles

6 Likes
3 Likes

Correct they wont.
Iran knows Israel will wipe them off the map if they launched, and Israel doesnt need to nuke Iran in order to turn it into a wasteland.

1 Like

This fkn idiot, not long until he is voted out

5 Likes

I got to take the middle ground between your position and @Bacchusfox - we can’t go around stating absolutes, everything is analysed in terms of probabilities. Is Iran or putin crazy enough to use nukes? maybe. Would Israel use nukes preemptively? I would say somewhat unlikely. Would the consequences be severe if either one uses them? Given the apathy and fear of escalation that we have seen from the west, unlikely.

4 Likes

unlikely. There will be lot’s of diplomatic outrage, some short lived ‘sanctions’ - there will be yearly commemorations but it will slowly fade into the background.

2 Likes

Then there will be a lot more nuclear armed countries.

Wow, times are tough. Imagine telling your grandkids your job in the invasion was to get tyres off towed artillery and deliver the tyres to another one so it could be towed. Maybe that’s why Russia loses so many artillery pieces, once Ukraine locates where there fires are coming from, they are sitting ducks.
On another note, I recall we were discussing Russias lack of tyres for trucks etc a couple of years ago, how drivers were complaining about threadbare tyres, and tyres not fit for icy conditions. I would absolutely love for Russia to culminate over something like this.

5 Likes

Nukes becoming a tacitly accepted weapon of war will inevitably lead to escalation, I think every country actually understands this so will not use them outside of some pyyrhic genocidal martyrdom by someone like NK. They’re essentially a political weapon at this stage, but if that changes the world needs to immediately reevaluate how we think about their existence

4 Likes

I think we’re already there given most have reached the conclusin that Ukraine would be/have been better off today if it was a nuclear state over relying on an alliance with the largest armed forces and economy in the world or the ‘democratic’ nato alliance as such. The US has really farked things up for us all.

7 Likes

I don’t know much about bombs. Is the truth in the first sentence above due to the collective global destruction from nuclear fall out that would occur from world wide nuclear war? ie nukes make the world uninhabitable so sane leaders are not really allowed to use them, and insane leaders will be removed from office?

Putin can start a war that kills 1m people and he’s still in power. If he dropped a bomb on Europe that killed 1m people in one shot, would he be removed by some just collective process?

The related question is how do these same national leaders feel about the potential to destroy entire cities with weapons that contain the damage to that location? (if such weapons don’t exist they soon will).

Agree with elf that given this is uncharted territory, we can only guess at likely outcomes. We hope that even dictatorships have enough people who want to keep living so that suicidal maniacs don’t get the keys to the nukes.

the above questions are a bit muddled, but I’m trying to understand the accepted norms of mass murder.

I think there is a technological and psychological distinction between something like the US’ biggest conventional bomb (MOAB), and small tactical nuclear weapons which have a similar explosive yield. Ie, if small nukes start being used, where is the red line drawn within the use of that technology to prevent further escalation of even bigger bombs, all the way up to yields that can level cities with millions of people. That escalation was important in discussions between Reagan and Gorbachev where they could see the realistic outcomes that would eventuate if the technology was actually permitted for use in war

Basically, if they’re never used, they can never escalate into a situation where we risk mutually assured destruction. The country that breaks that status quo will have the eyes of the entire world on them

2 Likes

11 Likes

“Putin’s goal in any talks is new security agreements that guarantee that Ukraine never joins NATO and that US-led military alliance abandons some eastern deployments.”

3 Likes
2 Likes