Nato goes nuclear

[whitehall]

Wouldn't you know NATO would bring it's arms into nuclear readiness just when we have a doddering old fool with his trembling thumb on the nuclear button. It's the kind of multiple scenarios that lead to ordinary man made disasters but in this case ...you get the message.
Do American lefties really rely on their democrat party loyalty more than the future of the freaking world?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wouldn't you know NATO would bring it's arms into nuclear readiness just when we have a doddering old fool with his trembling thumb on the nuclear button. It's the kind of multiple scenarios that lead to ordinary man made disasters but in this case ...you get the message.
Do American lefties really rely on their democrat party loyalty more than the future of the freaking world?

Give it up.,

 

[Zavulon]

France has the third largest nuke stockpile, after Russia and the USA

A distant third, but still

Actually, no. Even according wishful thinking SIRPI assumptions, who actually don't have information about India's and BetterKorea's nuclear arsenals, France is at fourth place (after Russia, USA and China). But, according some other estimations, they are already at the six place - after Russia, USA, China, India and DPRK.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia does not have the first strike capability to take out the French and British subs before they disappear Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Sure we can. Even in pessimistic (for Russia) scenario nothing that NATO has can prevent annihilation of at least 70% of their nuclear arsenal. In realistic scenario, we also capable eliminate at least one of their SSBNs before he launch his missiles. In optimistic scenario we can destroy both bases and all their submarines.
Anyway, we have good ABD to get rid out of some incoming RVs, and, of course, all state-essensial personal is evacuated from large cities before we launch our first strike and those who are still in cities have enough of time to shelter.

And that does even address the US capacity that will melt all of Russia.

The situation with the USA is a bit more complicated, but not much. The issue is, that retaliation counter-value strike is suicidal one.
So, if Russia was forced to attacks the US nuclear arsenal, then Russia suggest humanitarian pause in two days to allow Americans leave their cities, and, of course, we'll try to find peaceful solutions (which, highly likely, will include returning to Russia Alaska and California). And Americans are pragmatical. If they face the choice to leave Alaska and California and survive as still powerful and even nuclear state (second France) and the choice of virtual total annihilation (and becoming another Somali) just for the useless jesture - your choice is obvious.

You are nothing more than a kitten in a corner hissing at the Great Danes that will, without a doubt, eat you in one gulp.

Really? Man, those "Great Danes" don't have even a will to double their military production or cancel trading with Russia. Who can belive that you are ready to commit mass murder-suicide just for a jesture?

 

[Zavulon]

Wouldn't you know NATO would bring it's arms into nuclear readiness just when we have a doddering old fool with his trembling thumb on the nuclear button. It's the kind of multiple scenarios that lead to ordinary man made disasters but in this case ...you get the message.

It's simple. Deterrence type II.
1) NATO do something extremely provocative.
2) Russia increase its readiness (both of military and civilian defense).
3) NATO countries have the choice - a) believe and make few steps backs to defuse the situation. b) try to increase their own nuclear and civil defense readiness. c) read Russian preparations as "bluff", do not believe and continue extremely provocative behavior without increasing readiness.
4) if NATO choose "a" Russia won (in this episode of game achieved goals without actual nuclear attack). If NATO choose "b", and both Russia and NATO increasing their nuclear attacking and civil defense capabilities, and both prefer to fight and win, then the one who attack first and attack precisely won (but pay a significant price for his victory). c) if NATO countries do not believe in Russia's decisiveness - Ok, it's still good option for us. We calmly prepare and calmly attack your nuclear forces. Maximum attrition of your military units, minimal losses among your civilian population. And then, we suggest the peace, but now on the worse (for you) terms (like losing Alaska and California).
5) The USA (and, may be, France and UK) have few days of humanitarian pause to evacuate people from cities and think about Russian suggestionand what they can do with their badly damaged nuclear forces. They have a choice: - a) retaliate and attack Russian cities (counter value attack). It's clearly that it won't cause unacceptable damage, but then the Russian counter-value attack will virtually total annihilate US cities and infrastructure. So, it's practically suicidal, say nothing that deliberate attack against civiliab population is directly prohibited by the US nuclear doctrine. b) continue to fight by attacking military units, but avoiding attack of Russian cities. Then Russia eventually get rid of leftovers of the US Ohio-class submarines and win the war, may be, by attacking US-civilian infrastructure. c) accept quite generous Russian peaceful proposals.

We both have the understanding, that's why US don't do anything actually "extremely provocative" or, if they do, they'll accept our peace proposals after our first counter-force strike.

Do American lefties really rely on their democrat party loyalty more than the future of the freaking world?

And what is about the future of the freaking world? Why do you think that the future of BRICS-controlled world will be somehow worse, than the future of G7-controlled world? Are you really ready to die for homosexual marriages, drug-addiction epidemies, totalitarian control of your life and so on...?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Zavulon, if he truly represents Russia's interests, has a national death wish.

No matter how much he thinks Russia can strike and survive, it can't.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why are you willing to die, Zavulon? You can't even beat Ukraine in almost 30 months.

 

[ESay]

It's simple. Deterrence type II.
1) NATO do something extremely provocative.
2) Russia increase its readiness (both of military and civilian defense).
3) NATO countries have the choice - a) believe and make few steps backs to defuse the situation. b) try to increase their own nuclear and civil defense readiness. c) read Russian preparations as "bluff", do not believe and continue extremely provocative behavior without increasing readiness.
4) if NATO choose "a" Russia won (in this episode of game achieved goals without actual nuclear attack). If NATO choose "b", and both Russia and NATO increasing their nuclear attacking and civil defense capabilities, and both prefer to fight and win, then the one who attack first and attack precisely won (but pay a significant price for his victory). c) if NATO countries do not believe in Russia's decisiveness - Ok, it's still good option for us. We calmly prepare and calmly attack your nuclear forces. Maximum attrition of your military units, minimal losses among your civilian population. And then, we suggest the peace, but now on the worse (for you) terms (like losing Alaska and California).
5) The USA (and, may be, France and UK) have few days of humanitarian pause to evacuate people from cities and think about Russian suggestionand what they can do with their badly damaged nuclear forces. They have a choice: - a) retaliate and attack Russian cities (counter value attack). It's clearly that it won't cause unacceptable damage, but then the Russian counter-value attack will virtually total annihilate US cities and infrastructure. So, it's practically suicidal, say nothing that deliberate attack against civiliab population is directly prohibited by the US nuclear doctrine. b) continue to fight by attacking military units, but avoiding attack of Russian cities. Then Russia eventually get rid of leftovers of the US Ohio-class submarines and win the war, may be, by attacking US-civilian infrastructure. c) accept quite generous Russian peaceful proposals.

We both have the understanding, that's why US don't do anything actually "extremely provocative" or, if they do, they'll accept our peace proposals after our first counter-force strike.



And what is about the future of the freaking world? Why do you think that the future of BRICS-controlled world will be somehow worse, than the future of G7-controlled world? Are you really ready to die for homosexual marriages, drug-addiction epidemies, totalitarian control of your life and so on...?

Yuri, does it happen to be you who posted under the nickname Silver Cat here before?

 

[Zavulon]

Zavulon, if he truly represents Russia's interests, has a national death wish.

No matter how much he thinks Russia can strike and survive, it can't.

It's just your belief. It's not based on the known facts and/or calculations. I'm not going to discuss the matters of faith (if this is your faith), but you shouldn't expect convincing other people just by repetition of your mantras.

 

[Zavulon]

Yuri, does it happen to be you who posted under the nickname Silver Cat here before?

No. But may be, we were quoting the same book.

 

[Zavulon]

Why are you willing to die, Zavulon? You can't even beat Ukraine in almost 30 months.

We don't want to beat Ukraine. We want to liberate it. That's the difference.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nope, you are a czarist, nothing more, and you are failing.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We don't want to beat Ukraine. We want to liberate it. That's the difference.

Yeah, liberate it from its own popularly elected government. A government that was legally elected under the existing Ukrainian laws. Just like you "LIBERATED" Poland in 1945 and jailed the remainder of the popularly elected government from before the war which had carried on the war in the name of the Polish people. You Russians have a very peculiar definition of the word "liberated".

 

[Zavulon]

Yeah, liberate it from its own popularly elected government. A government that was legally elected under the existing Ukrainian laws. Just like you "LIBERATED" Poland in 1945 and jailed the remainder of the popularly elected government from before the war which had carried on the war in the name of the Polish people. You Russians have a very peculiar definition of the word "liberated".

Yes, of course. Hitler was legally elected, too. It simply doesn't matter if they were legally elected or illegally violated Ukrainian Constitution. They are killing Russian people, therefore we are going to kill them and prevent them from doing so.
Can you say, that a drug-addicted person is really free? No. It's enslaved by the addition. Same way, we can't say that a person obsessed with hatred (especially with Russophobia) is free.

 

[sparky]

So who is the aggressor here???? ~S~

 

[Zavulon]

So who is the aggressor here???? ~S~

Ukraine, of course. They attacked DPR and LPR, allies of the Russian Federation, which was equal to attack against Russian Federation itself. Why?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Ukraine, of course. They attacked DPR and LPR, allies of the Russian Federation, which was equal to attack against Russian Federation itself. Why?

DPR and LPR were and legally still are integral parts of Ukraine. Claiming that they are allies of the Russian Federation is like saying Montana and Idaho are allies of Mexico.

 

[sparky]

Why?

Because perspective is relevant Zav

Do you know of our 1962 Cuban missle crisis???

~S~

 

[Zavulon]

DPR and LPR were and legally still are integral parts of Ukraine. Claiming that they are allies of the Russian Federation is like saying Montana and Idaho are allies of Mexico.

You may think so. As well as some people may think that California is a part of Mexico.
Anyway, if people of Montana and Idaho declare independence (and prove this independence with their armed hands) - they can sign alliance with whoever they want. And they have right to fight against abusive and discriminate government.

And the people of DPR and LPR, as well as people of the rest of Russian Federation, consider DPR and LPR as integral parts of the Russian Federation.

 

[Zavulon]

Because perspective is relevant Zav

Do you know of our 1962 Cuban missle crisis???

~S~

Yes. You guys just dodged the bullet.