Europe under extreme duress

[Flash]

Irrelevant. We're talking about what we should do, not what we will do.

It is what we have done already.

I'm not convinced.

Okay.

 

[Mirage]

It is what we have done already.

Okay.

And I'm arguing that that is a mistake.

Here's some reading material that describes the outcome of what you guys are arguing in favor of better than I can:

What the science says: Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia? - Alliance for Science

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has suggested that he would consider using nuclear weapons if confronted with a NATO military response in Ukraine, or if faced with a direct threat to his person or regime. If the war spreads to a NATO country like Estonia or Poland a direct US-Russia confrontation...

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

BLUF: humans will likely survive as a species, but "virtually everyone who survived the initial blasts would subsequently starve" if we have a nuclear war with Russia.

 

[Flash]

We've killed many tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere since 9/11. Most of these I've no doubt we did everything to avoid, but such is war. I'm sure many of these bodies were piled up in streets at some point, and the optics could have been used against us. I'm not saying this is what happened in all cases in Ukraine right now, but we don't have enough evidence to definitively conclude what you are concluding.

Show me the mass graves we dug. Show me the bodies left in the streets, hands bound and shot in the head. You can't, because we didn't do it.

Many other civilians were murdered in cold blood by elements of our ground forces. We don't condone those killings as a society, and I can tell you from experience and knowing many Russian people that most would not condone murdering civilians any more than we would. I'm not saying Russia is fighting their war as cleanly as we would. I'm not saying their govt is as moral as ours usually tries to be. I am saying that the Russian people writ large can't be blamed for the atrocities that some soldiers have likely committed in Ukraine, anymore than I should be blamed for Eddie Gallagher's actions.

Many? Cold blood? There were isolated killings by a handful of individuals that we tried to prosecute to the full extent of the law when we found out.

The fact that you continue to draw parallels between our recent actions and the Russians shows a depth of willful ignorance that is impossible to argue with.

 

[Mirage]

Show me the mass graves we dug. Show me the bodies left in the streets, hands bound and shot in the head. You can't, because we didn't do it.



Many? Cold blood? There were isolated killings by a handful of individuals that we tried to prosecute to the full extent of the law when we found out.

The fact that you continue to draw parallels between our recent actions and the Russians shows a depth of willful ignorance that is impossible to argue with.

Are you reading my posts? I'm not saying we've bound a shot groups of people in the back of the head. I'm saying it's foolish to blame all Russian people for the actions of an unknown number of their soldiers who committed atrocities that haven't even been fully investigated and verified. You can blame Putin and the leaders on the ground for allowing it to happen all you want, but it's ludicrous to condemn Ivan the potato farmer who doesn't even have money for a TV and doesn't know or give a shit about world news or geopolitics.

 

[mapache2426]

Total garbage. Tell us, what is the capability to vulnerability metric for free choice and sovereignty?

I don't get the question. America doesn't guarantee the freedom and sovereignty of every nation on the planet, especially not to the point of nuclear war. Extending that guarantee to weak, exposed states on Russia's border doesn't make any sense. Bleeding Russia in those states via proxy and guaranteeing hard commitments to the core Western nations (Germany&westward) does.

 

[Hotdogs]

Are you reading my posts? I'm not saying we've bound a shot groups of people in the back of the head. I'm saying it's foolish to blame all Russian people for the actions of an unknown number of their soldiers who committed atrocities that haven't even been fully investigated and verified. You can blame Putin and the leaders on the ground for allowing it to happen all you want, but it's ludicrous to condemn Ivan the potato farmer who doesn't even have money for a TV and doesn't know or give a shit about world news or geopolitics.

If you try to find some sort of moral equivalency between the conduct of war between western and Russian militaries - You’re going to have to play some serious mental gymnastics to find any logic.

You can’t decouple the actions of a nations military and it’s populace. By definition public policy and military action are tied together and the Russian populace will be held accountable. Japan and Germany learned this the hard way. They’ve had access to enough information to see opposing sides and question the nationalist propaganda. They don’t live in North Korea.

 

[Mirage]

If you try to find some sort of moral equivalency between the conduct of war between western and Russian militaries - You’re going to have to play some serious mental gymnastics to find any logic.

You can’t decouple the actions of a nations military and it’s populace. By definition public policy and military action are tied together and the Russian populace will be held accountable. Japan and Germany learned this the hard way. They’ve had access to enough information to see opposing sides and question the nationalist propaganda. They don’t live in North Korea.

Japan and Germany learned it the hard way because we bombed Dresden and Tokyo to the ground, indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose, not even targeting manufacturing centers let alone military targets. We've murdered entire villages of Vietnamese. But it's ok because it was us, and that wasn't reflective of who we are as a people. But if Russians commit atrocities in war then it is.

You can't name a civilization that doesn't have a history full of atrocities. The Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongols, Russians, Americans, Native Americans, Africans, etc etc... people are just people. When some of us think we can get away with raping, pillaging, and murdering, then that's what people do. War is a time that's ripe for that. You guys just keep believing our average people are special and the Russians that make an average of $673 per month and live in a rural society with nothing but propaganda on TV and laws suppressing their ability to speak out against their govt are all-knowing and supportive of atrocities and invasions. Lets nuke em.

 

[Griz882]

So you think that if we attack Russia's homeland they won't use nukes as long as we promise not to use them first? Of course they will!

Furthermore, you believe that 6000+ nukes won't destroy America and Europe? How naive. I'm not saying the end of humankind... I'm saying the end of the America and Europe that we know. Some folks will survive out in rural areas and live like our ancient civilizations did, or more likely be invaded by China or whoever still has a military to subdue our farmers. Individual civilizations have never experienced anything worse, so it's silly to say they've survived worse. The worst plague is a joke in comparison.

I've answered that question regarding how much of the free world I'm willing to give away. The answer is none. Fight Russia.. smartly and in a very constrained fashion, just the way we are currently in Ukraine. It's clear we can beat him that way in the Baltics if he tries. Even if we can't, then yes... I'm willing to give up the Baltics to avoid what I just described above. That's about all Russia has any ounce of hope of capturing, and I don't even think they have that if we are arming them. Germany? Yeah, right.

Now your turn. How many people are you willing to get killed in a nuclear war to keep our credibility in tact and honor the NATO alliance to the letter? 2 billion? 5 billion? Everyone last human? Maybe we should ask the Baltics... would you rather all die in a nuclear war and have your land uninhabitable for generations, or fight the Russians with our weapons and support for as long as it takes to secure a lasting freedom?

1. We don’t have to attack the Russian “homeland.” Perhaps I should have been more clear and stated “attack Russian forces” so I’ll take the check on clarity.

2. How many nuclear wars have you survived? Like most who fret at the thought of expanding war you have zero idea what you are talking about. None.

3. How is it….in your geopolitical world…an armed and aggressive Russia is going to accept our sending weapons to help the Balkans slice their balls off…AGAIN? This is the absolute fault in your argument. The free world is flooding Ukraine with weapons and Russia hasn’t gone nuclear yet….why would they risk - as you note - everything - for Brasov but not for a closer and more useful Odessa? Side point…I always find American’s (assuming you are one) willing to let “lesser” places suffer so they can enjoy “their” way of life rather small and tragic. But that’s me.

4. 6 billion…even if we lose that many we’d still have more people left alive than the entire global population in 1960. I won’t go one human life above 6 billion. Beyond that…all your talk is based on rather loose theory - like this that believed parts of Japan would be uninhabitable for 500 years after the atomic bombs were dropped.

 

[Griz882]

I don't get the question. America doesn't guarantee the freedom and sovereignty of every nation on the planet, especially not to the point of nuclear war. Extending that guarantee to weak, exposed states on Russia's border doesn't make any sense. Bleeding Russia in those states via proxy and guaranteeing hard commitments to the core Western nations (Germany&westward) does.

No, America does not…but alliances do. NATO is not just a defense alliance, it is a trade and political bloc that share a common goal of protecting democracies within the context of globalism. I’ll fall back on my earlier question….why would Russia tolerate us feeding arms to Ukraine but suddenly decide that doing the same in the Balkans is a clarion call for all out nuclear war? “Core western nations”…pretty slender stuff bordering not on racism but bigotry.

 

[Griz882]

Japan and Germany learned it the hard way because we bombed Dresden and Tokyo to the ground, indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose, not even targeting manufacturing centers let alone military targets. We've murdered entire villages of Vietnamese. But it's ok because it was us, and that wasn't reflective of who we are as a people. But if Russians commit atrocities in war then it is.

You can't name a civilization that doesn't have a history full of atrocities. The Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongols, Russians, Americans, Native Americans, Africans, etc etc... people are just people. When some of us think we can get away with raping, pillaging, and murdering, then that's what people do. War is a time that's ripe for that. You guys just keep believing our average people are special and the Russians that make an average of $673 per month and live in a rural society with nothing but propaganda on TV and laws suppressing their ability to speak out against their govt are all-knowing and supportive of atrocities and invasions. Lets nuke em.

You’re the guy hung up on nuking people. I, for one, believe the entire affair will be conventional. Messy, but conventional.

 

[mapache2426]

why would Russia tolerate us feeding arms to Ukraine but suddenly decide that doing the same in the Balkans is a clarion call for all out nuclear war?

We're talking about attacks on a NATO member leading to direct conflict between our forces, not the feeding of arms.

Core western nations”…pretty slender stuff bordering not on racism but bigotry.

An embarrassingly idiotic statement, core western nations are large states, economically significant, with credible militaries capable of holding up their portion of the allied lines. Romania and Estonia are none of those. I've got no problem with Turkey in NATO for these reasons, regardless of their cultural differences from "the west"

 

[Mirage]

1. We don’t have to attack the Russian “homeland.” Perhaps I should have been more clear and stated “attack Russian forces” so I’ll take the check on clarity.

2. How many nuclear wars have you survived? Like most who fret at the thought of expanding war you have zero idea what you are talking about. None.

3. How is it….in your geopolitical world…an armed and aggressive Russia is going to accept our sending weapons to help the Balkans slice their balls off…AGAIN? This is the absolute fault in your argument. The free world is flooding Ukraine with weapons and Russia hasn’t gone nuclear yet….why would they risk - as you note - everything - for Brasov but not for a closer and more useful Odessa? Side point…I always find American’s (assuming you are one) willing to let “lesser” places suffer so they can enjoy “their” way of life rather small and tragic. But that’s me.

4. 6 billion…even if we lose that many we’d still have more people left alive than the entire global population in 1960. I won’t go one human life above 6 billion. Beyond that…all you talk is based on rather loose theory - like this that believed parts of Japan would be uninhabitable for 500 years after the atomic bombs were dropped.

You’re the guy hung up on nuking people. I, for one, believe the entire affair will be conventional. Messy, but conventional.

1. I have participated in 2 NATO vs Russia wargames and at those spoke to folks who have participated in a great many. Suffice to say that there is no question in anyone's mind who studies the subject that open war between the US and Russia leads to complete nuclear war. While anything is possible, the odds are heavily, heavily against you if you think otherwise.

2. What? How many have you survived? I don't get your point. Are you saying that a war with Russia wouldn't expand into a nuclear war, and that if I think otherwise then I don't know what I'm talking about? I have a Master's degree in the subject from NPS. I hope I know at least something.

3. I don't think I fully understand your questions and points here, either, but if you're asking why I think Russia would allow us to send the Baltics weapons but otherwise stay out of the war, my answer is because that is exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now. Not to mention, it would not be to Putin's benefit to drag us into the war fully, as he'd much rather us just send weapons and wage economic warfare.

4. Again, read this: https://allianceforscience.cornell....urvive-a-nuclear-war-between-nato-and-russia/
Or perhaps the scientists who studied this have no idea compared to you. According to them, far more than 6 billion will die, and the entire earth will be mostly uninhabitable for over a decade.

5. I'm hung up on nuking people? I'm saying we should do absolutely everything possible to avoid that outcome, defending myself against a bunch of hawks who want to lunge headlong into nuclear war because we will only be protecting the Baltics in principle but not per the letter of NATO if not.

 

[Griz882]

We're talking about attacks on a NATO member leading to direct conflict between our forces, not the feeding of arms.


An embarrassingly idiotic statement, core western nations are large states, economically significant, with credible militaries capable of holding up their portion of the allied lines. Romania and Estonia are none of those. I've got no problem with Turkey in NATO for these reasons, regardless of their cultural differences from "the west"

I know what we are talking about.

 

[Griz882]

1. I have participated in 2 NATO vs Russia wargames and at those spoke to folks who have participated in a great many. Suffice to say that there is no question in anyone's mind who studies the subject that open war between the US and Russia leads to complete nuclear war. While anything is possible, the odds are heavily, heavily against you if you think otherwise.

2. What? How many have you survived? I don't get your point. Are you saying that a war with Russia wouldn't expand into a nuclear war, and that if I think otherwise then I don't know what I'm talking about? I have a Master's degree in the subject from NPS. I hope I know at least something.

3. I don't think I fully understand your questions and points here, either, but if you're asking why I think Russia would allow us to send the Baltics weapons but otherwise stay out of the war, my answer is because that is exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now. Not to mention, it would not be to Putin's benefit to drag us into the war fully, as he'd much rather us just send weapons and wage economic warfare.

4. Again, read this: https://allianceforscience.cornell....urvive-a-nuclear-war-between-nato-and-russia/
Or perhaps the scientists who studied this have no idea compared to you. According to them, far more than 6 billion will die, and the entire earth will be mostly uninhabitable for decades.

5. I'm hung up on nuking people? I'm saying we should do absolutely everything possible to avoid that outcome, defending myself against a bunch of hawks who want to lunge headlong into nuclear war because we will only be protecting the Baltics in principle but not per the letter of NATO if not.

I have participated in about 15 NATO v Russia war games…they only end up with a nuclear war if it is written into the scenario from the start. In “free play” it only happened once. Why? Because military leaders aren’t willing to go that far. Why do you imagine that Russians are?

My point is you are banging on about the end of the world when, scientific evidence doesn’t entirely support you. Try “Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear WeaponsExchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations” Reisner et. al. That study disagrees totally. Science is in the business of always questioning itself so it genuinely “says” very little that is definitive). Indeed, I can counter any study with another equally well researched.

Look, it is not a military question it is a political one. Nothing else. Your whole “what they should do” approach is the same as me saying that Iceland SHOULD send positive vibes via a telekinetic link with Sweden to make Putin calmer. I’ll say it one more time…no standing western government will survive allowing a direct attack on NATO to go unanswered. The governments that replace them will be placed there by people who demand that treaty obligations be honored…that is all there is. Biden isn’t going to destroy his administration (and maybe his political party) so he can say “Well, MAYBE I prevented a nuclear war!” So, abandon your SHOULD do idea and I’ll abandon mine.

To your final point…you seem convinced that Russia (or the U.S., can ‘t tell which) is just leaning on the nuke button ready to launch…I entirely disagree. You say the “Russian people” are, at some measure, innocents held down by Putin…so why will their fathers and sons be so quick to launch a nuclear attack? A recent study, I’ll see if I can find it, has the chances of a nuclear exchange at something like 10 in a million right now…as we speak. We have been much closer (in my life time - I lived through the old “duck-and-cover” days) and the Russians were a lot more hostile back then…and they didn’t hit the button. So, the greatest difference between us is the idea that hosts of military men on both sides are out there ready to destroy the world…I don’t think they are. Frankly, I don’t see a war with Russia going nuclear.

 

[taxi1]

Does anyone think Putin will directly attack the Baltic nations? He won't while they are members of NATO and we have tripwire forces in them.

He will certainly continue to undermine them surreptitiously, funding anti-NATO and anti-democracy elements of the country, encouraging infighting, using energy and resources as leverage, and looking to split seams between NATO members. He was glad to help along Brexit and an enthusiastic participant in a country's election shenanigans. He's been at war with us and we pretended not to be.

His invasion was a disaster for Ukraine, but looks to be a disaster for Russia too on multiple levels. We just need to make sure it is not existential for Russia, where they do whatever it takes to win in Ukraine. That road leads to tactical nukes.

With Russia in its current boundaries, it was a whole lot more ethnically homogeneous and everyone is happy to be there. Taking over these other countries results in having as part of your community a bunch of people that hate your guts. Dumb.

Russia needs to just not be a part of the modern world. Bullies not invited.