At what point the USA will launch nukes?

[Zavulon]

You have more than a few misconceptions in that post.
1. Agreed that WMD are dangerous even in independent countries like Cuba or Ukraine, or Sweden, or Poland, or Turkey, or any NATO country within range. Point being that "Mutually Assured Destruction" guarantees that they should never be used.

"Mutually assured destruction" is more a journalistic exaggeration, rather than actual capability. In our reality Ukraine used some chemical weapons, but it wasn't really effective and Russian officials don't emphasy it. The main problem with medium range missiles, located at close distance - is their counter-force potencial. If you have missiles in Cuba/California or Poland/Ukraine, you can eliminate significant part of your adversary's ICBMs by your first strike.

2. There can never be a Mexican bloc or a Shanghai bloc in the US. Just can't happen even in a fantasy.

Never say never.

3. Your "race war" just can't happen either. A recent movie "Civil War" had a plot whereby a president like Trump kept power by using the military, and many states' National Guard formed an alliance to defeat the illegitimate president and his rebel army. But no foreign forces were used, which would make sense, since neither side would accept foreign military assistance. Canada and Mexico might help the national guards depose the illegitimate president, in theory.

I didn't tell about "race war". I just told the real story about American support of Texans, attacked by Mexicans during their war for independence. It's not just about race.

Millions of accurate snipers would not present targets. I recall Russia lost to the Afghans, and they neighbored Russia.

Russia wasn't defeated by Afghans. Russia just decided that they can live in peace with Americans, and, therefore, can give this sandbox to them. Just as a little token of friendship.
And when the Russians have, say, indisputable air superiority (as it was in Western Syria) they killed local "light infantry" by hundreds of thousands.

The US is on the opposite side of the globe. The US is safe from occupation by anyone. So the only realistic option is a nuclear exchange and see who can survive a radioactive wasteland, not a good outcome.

Latinoamericans are on the same side of globe, and there are a lot of them even inside the USA.

 

[Zavulon]

Not true. Ukraine would never have attacked Russian troops. The 2014 lines were stable until Putin invaded.

Of course they would and they did.

That is a major misconception. An independent Ukraine cannot have their independence revoked by Russia. Russia can invade, but the world will help Ukraine defeat the illegal invasion.

Of course, any official recognition may be revoked. Like, say, Montenegro's independence was once recognised by the USA in 1905, then it was revoked some years later, and then, once more it was recognised in 2005.

NATO is Ukraine's supporter against the illegal invasion.

1) It is a legal invasion.2) NATO is not charity organisation.

If there is a peace deal NATO "peacekeepers" will be on Ukraine's border to monitor the "buffer zone". Russia can name a country to monitor their side of the buffer zone, say China or Turkey.

No. There will be no any "buffer zone", or "peacekeepers". Highly likely, there will be no more Ukraine at all.

There are no Nazi regimes. A NATO military presence keeps Putin from invading. They have been there keeping the peace since 1945. Russia is the only country that invades other countries.

It is simply not true. They are Nazies according Russian definition of the word (Nazies are people who don't like Russians).

That is a lie. Please explain.

The difference between facilitation and participation is pretty arbitrary. For Russia this difference is usage of western-produced long range weapons against "old Russian territories". You did it, so, it is no more facilitation. It is participation. And it means further Russian [deniable] strikes again targets in the Western countries themselves.

1. We aren't talking about Serbia and Iraq, who are independent countries now, not captured states.

A part of Serbian territory is still occupied now. And no. If there are rules, they are working for both sides. The USA destroyed post WWII world order, and change it to pre-WWIII. The USA attacked Russian territories with long-range weapons - and we are in WWIII now. Yes, its just a "phoney war" now, but pretty soon, likely, this year, the war will become really hot.

2. No clue what "Taiga" means, the translator skipped it. I assume "might makes right"?

It is English word (at least borrowed in English). Meaning "Boreal forest". As Jungle is "Rain forest".

Taiga - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russian idiom "Taiga is the law, and a bear is the prosecutor" close to "The law of jungle".

What is your first language, btw?

3. Agreed that Russia can defend its own territories, the problem happens when they claim someone else's territory, like Ukraine.

But now Ukraine is our territory. If you choose to see it as a problem - it is your problem, not ours.

 

[GLASNOST]

Any war, sooner or later is finished with a peace treaty (sometimes it is unconditional surrender of one of sides).

I think you and I may differ on the definition of "finished". A skirmish? OK. A battle? OK. Russian roulette? OK. Running out of chips in a game of poker? OK. The final decree on your divorce? OK. But war? Njet. Those are never really "finished".

Ok. Let's discuss, what minimal reasonable terms should the USA demand for the acceptable peace in this situation.

I don't like your basis of "resonable terms" being dictated by "US demands". What were the "reasonable terms demanded by the US" that gave Washington "acceptable reason" to invade Irak? Their invasion was against international law by decree of the United Nations.

I suggest those:
1) Mexican forces should be withdrawn from all territories which the USA consider as a part of the USA. Mexican Junta should be executed for aggresion against the USA.

Shouldn't Texas be handed back to Mexico? It was stolen from Mexico by the Yankees you should know.

2) There should not be any non-American forces (especially with heavy equipment/medium range missiles) on the both American continents.
3) Ideology of the "Native suprematism" should be officially banned in both America's. White, Black, Yellow people, English speakers and Protestants should have the same rights as Latinoamericans.

What else?

Well - well - and well. The US should be broken into smaller state-nations and maybe even eliminated all together. Let the indigenous population (what there is left of it) rule as they see fit. They can put whitey on reservations if they want.

 

[kyzr]

"Mutually assured destruction" is more a journalistic exaggeration, rather than actual capability. In our reality Ukraine used some chemical weapons, but it wasn't really effective and Russian officials don't emphasize it. The main problem with medium range missiles, located at close distance - is their counter-force potential. If you have missiles in Cuba/California or Poland/Ukraine, you can eliminate significant part of your adversary's ICBMs by your first strike.

Russia's nuclear response is guaranteed because they are located over such a wide area. Not even counting any Russian air-defense hits to attacking missiles. No one wants to start a nuclear war knowing that a nuclear response is guaranteed.

Russian Federation | Nuclear Forces

Russia wasn't defeated by Afghans. Russia just decided that they can live in peace with Americans, and, therefore, can give this sandbox to them. Just as a little token of friendship.
And when the Russians have, say, indisputable air superiority (as it was in Western Syria) they killed local "light infantry" by hundreds of thousands.

You can point to Syria, but why would you, the Kurds won and Assad/Russia lost.
The US is an entirely different animal, way across the Pacific, with a heavily armed populace.

Latino-Americans are on the same side of globe, and there are a lot of them even inside the USA.

There are a lot more of us, besides they would not bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia's nuclear response is guaranteed because they are located over such a wide area. Not even counting any Russian air-defense hits to attacking missiles. No one wants to start a nuclear war knowing that a nuclear response is guaranteed.

Russian Federation | Nuclear Forces

Actually, nothing is 100% guaranteed. Who knows, may be Americans have some sophisticated plan how to disable Russian C3I system by some sort of sabotage, and then eliminate significant part of Russian nukes? Of course, it's gambling, but who knows, if Russia is too provocative (like sending forces in California and Texas, or deploying IRBMs on Cuba) it will be a lesser evil. I mean, it might be better to lose 20 mlns of Americans in the war, but save rest of them.

You can point to Syria, but why would you, the Kurds won and Assad/Russia lost.

Russia didn't lost yet. Russia still have bases in Alavitostan. And Kurds are now Turkish problem.

The US is an entirely different animal, way across the Pacific, with a heavily armed populace.

No. US population have a lot of light firearms, but very little of heavy equipment.

There are a lot more of us, besides they would not bite the hand that feeds them.

In our game, it is Chinese hand that feeds them. And there are almost 700 mln of Latinos in both Americas.

 

[kyzr]

Of course they would and they did.

Please provide a link proving that Ukraine attacked Russia. There is no record of such an attack.

Of course, any official recognition may be revoked. Like, say, Montenegro's independence was once recognized by the USA in 1905, then it was revoked some years later, and then, once more it was recognized in 2005.

If Russia is the only nation that revokes Ukraine independence, then that proves that the assertion is invalid. The world will help Ukraine repel the illegal invasion. Agreed, NATO is not a charity, it is a defensive alliance.

No. There will be no any "buffer zone", or "peacekeepers". Highly likely, there will be no more Ukraine at all.

The peace negotiation will probably need peacekeepers, or the war continues.

It is simply not true. They are Nazis according Russian definition of the word (Nazis are people who don't like Russians).

Nazis are not people who don't like Russians. You simply can't use that term incorrectly.

Nazism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The difference between facilitation and participation is pretty arbitrary. For Russia this difference is usage of western-produced long range weapons against "old Russian territories". You did it, so, it is no more facilitation. It is participation. And it means further Russian [deniable] strikes against targets in the Western countries themselves.

This is the sentence that I called a lie:
"France, Germany, Poland are EU members, I believe. And the USA attacked Russia (even "undisputed" Russian territories)."

We gave Ukraine short-range missiles to defend their country from an illegal invasion by Russia. The targets were limited to invasion supply lines. Any attack on a NATO country would invoke a response from all NATO countries, a very bad idea.

A part of Serbian territory is still occupied now. And no. If there are rules, they are working for both sides. The USA destroyed post WWII world order, and change it to pre-WWIII. The USA attacked Russian territories with long-range weapons - and we are in WWIII now. Yes, its just a "phony war" now, but pretty soon, likely, this year, the war will become really hot.

No one is occupying Serbia. I need a link if you have one. The US did NOT attack Russia, Ukraine defended itself from an invasion.
You had better hope that Putin and Trump can work out a peace plan. WW3 is not an outcome that benefits anyone.

What is your first language, btw?

My only language is English. What is your profession?
You are very well read, but have several incorrect (nationalistic) perspectives.

But now Ukraine is our territory. If you choose to see it as a problem - it is your problem, not ours.

No Ukraine is NOT Russian territory and it never will be, we have the Budapest Memorandum as justification, signed by Russia.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org