stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:06 pm… Some of you guys are unbelievable. We have hundreds of thousands of people dead in Ukraine, who would be alive right now if the US could just live with having its missiles 500 miles farther from Moscow,…
If you think those figures are bad, you should check out the new report from RAND. I just read (in the NonZero newsletter,
The RAND study, based on workshops involving 15 analysts, found “six plausible options for Russian escalation” that could “fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict, ranging from a limited attack on NATO to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.”
Don't worry about that; that's just ridiculous propaganda. Russia has no need to escalate anything. They are doing just fine right now slowly grinding down the Ukrainian forces.
I mean the point about nuclear weapons has always been on the table from the beginning of this conflict. Does the US have a No First Use doctrine for nuclear weapons? The answer is "no, they don't, and they never have".
If Russia feels its under threat of losing badly, then sure, they very well may use nuclear weapons. The US would do the same if this fight was on our border. Don't kid yourselves. This is all the more reason why NATO shouldn't try to push itself right up to the Russian border, which gives more chances for mistakes and misinterpretations that could lead to nuclear weapons use. Either Putin is a murderously bloody bastard who would kill his mother if it would help him politically, or he isn't. The US government knows he isn't like that, but they want their people to think he is, because it's good for propaganda purposes. Maybe he should have just done that at the beginning. Drop a couple tactical nukes on some Ukraine forces, kill 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers all at once, and make a strong statement at the outset, rather than this long draw out war that has already killed many times more than that amount with no end in sight. But he didn't, so maybe he's not quite so bad as he's been made out to be. Some people say that Putin is well liked within Russia by a majority of people. I don't know if that's true or not, but it might be. I certainly know the US media has lied about a lot of other things, so they might be lying about Putin being a murderous bastard. They certainly have motive to lie, because their industrial overlords are making boatloads of money off this conflict.
You'd think people could understand simple stuff like this, but apparently adding 2 + 2 is hard.
Well either they knew that pushing NATO right up to his borders wouldn't cause him to use nuclear weapons or else they didn't care if a lot of Ukrainians got incinerated with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure which is worse. That's my unbacked claim about how their thinking must have gone. It's simple logic. It doesn't take a super secret CIA spy ring to figure out simple logic.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:03 pm
Don't worry about {the nuclear threat}; that's just ridiculous propaganda.
…
If Russia feels its under threat of losing badly, then sure, they very well may use nuclear weapons.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:03 pm
Don't worry about {the nuclear threat}; that's just ridiculous propaganda.
…
If Russia feels its under threat of losing badly, then sure, they very well may use nuclear weapons.
Yes. That does seem to be a contradiction. I, like you, will wait for the explanation as to why it is not.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
The point is that the nuclear threat has been on the table all along. Any time you're messing around on the borders of a nuclear power, the nuclear threat is in play. That goes for the US border as well, of course.
The US downplayed the nuclear threat early on in the Ukraine conflict because it suited their purposes at that point.
Now, they trot it out when it's convenient to try to stir up interest in the war. If anything, the nuclear threat is less now because Russia isn't doing too badly in the war right now. Rand consultants have to justify their salaries though, so they have to write about something. And Pentagon officials are happy to leak such reports out when it's convenient to keep stirring the pot.
This stuff isn't rocket surgery. It doesn't require the big brains at Rand to figure it out. If you're messing around on a nuclear power's borders, don't be surprised if there's a big boom at some point. Of course, in the case of the USA, you don't even have to be messing around on our borders; we're happy to lob a couple nukes onto far away islands like Honshu and Kyushu if it suits our purposes. My point being that we're no better than any other country when it comes to this stuff. Don't buy into the narrative that Putin is some uniquely evil person. They've been pushing that one for the last 10 years or so, which has only made it easier for Ukraine to get pushed into the terrible situation it's in right now.
By the way, since Rand came up, I've been reading the books by Daniel Ellsberg recently. I'm sure this is old hat for most of you, but if anyone out there hasn't read his stuff on Vietnam and nuclear threat (his last book being The Doomsday Machine), I highly recommend it.
No, i get that it’s all our fault. You’re consistent on that.
Where you are not consistent is in the area of how likely it’s going to happen. You can say it’s all propaganda, or you can say “sure, Putin will do that if he feels threatened.”
You can’t say both.
It feels like you think that if it’s the US or NATO’s fault, then any nuking doesn’t count.
Ok, I'll explain it to you like you're five. Russia won't be losing this war with Ukraine. Russia is a huge powerful country right next to a smaller, much less powerful country. Russia won't lose this war. Therefore, Russia won't feel it needs to use nuclear weapons. Do you feel better now? I hope you can sleep with my assurances. Any time the Rand Corporation tries to keep you up at night with its propaganda just remember that stuper1 assured you that nukes will not be used in this conflict.
Also, on Taiwan, if it comes to a war with China, China won't be losing that one either. China is only a few miles from Taiwan, has 1.5 billion people, a huge industrial base, plenty of smarty pants guys, and now a fairly close cooperation with Russia (thanks to the US's terrible foreign policy moves) where they can get plenty of petroleum and other natural resources and more technical knowledge. Any one in Taiwan who doesn't want to live under the CCP, or doesn't want to be sacrificed by insane leaders in a certain-to-lose battle against the CCP, should try to move out as soon as possible. I feel sorry for the little guys who can't move out and will be the first ones sent to die by the insane leaders. Hopefully some of them at least believe they are fighting a worthy cause, hopeless though it may be, so at least they will die fairly happy. Truth is, they are fighting a worthy cause, but that doesn't make it any less hopeless.
There is a saying that may apply here: discretion is the better part of valor. But I wish them well, I truly do. They are in a very bad situation. It's hard to fight with geography and demography though. And as my Taiwanese friend points out, the CCP doesn't want to see a successful Han democracy right across the strait, because that will encourage its own people to push for democracy. And I try to tell him, that's the exact problem. The CCP doesn't want to see it, and that's why they will squash it pretty soon, and nobody can stop them. He thinks the Taiwanese people should fight it out. I think they should cut the best deal they can and be done with it rather than being squashed. I guess time will tell who was right. Hopefully I am wrong on this one.
Thank you, stuper, for stepping down to my level so that I could understand. I and perhaps all those who are down here with me still have some reservations, but we appreciate your efforts.
You are very welcome. I am happy to help. You see one difference between me and the Rand guys is I don't have anything to sell, so I am able to give you the simple, unvarnished truth, which is that a relatively small country next to a huge country has no fighting chance. The Rand guys have two aims: (1) serve American interests, and (2) basically act as salesmen for Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing, etc. This is how the Rand guys maintain their cushy jobs. Even though they know as well as I do that Ukraine has no chance against Russia and Taiwan has no chance against China, they will pretend that these smaller countries might have a chance so the US can arm those countries to the teeth generating profits for the arms makers and serving American interests by hopefully destabilizing Russia and China. Once the fighting begins and Ukraine and/or Taiwan are decimated, the US will shake its head regretfully and say, "Aw that's too bad what happened to those poor folks, nobody could have known it would turn out so bad."
After a little more thought yesterday, I did think of one hope that Taiwan would have of staying independent from China in the long term, which is if somehow it could acquire nuclear weapons. It seems farfetched that they could do that given the multitude of Chinese spies that must be in Taiwan, but hey North Korea and Pakistan got them, so maybe there is a way. If Taiwan could acquire nuclear weapons, then obviously they would have a chance of staying independent from China in the long term. I can't see the US helping them get nuclear weapons, because it goes against our promise to China that we would not support Taiwanese independence, but maybe there is another way they could get them, although again I doubt that could work without China catching wind of it and attacking Taiwan before they actually take possession of the weapons.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:41 pm
so I am able to give you the simple, unvarnished truth, which is that a relatively small country next to a huge country has no fighting
chance
Except…Japan which colonized China;
Israel, which is 9 miles wide in some places devastated the armies of its relatively massive neighbors, all at once;
little Britain ruled half the world.
Um, yeah, there were some technological imbalances in those examples that tilt the other direction here. But anyway, I wish the Ukrainians and Taiwanese nothing but the best sincerely. I hope they make the very best of bad situations.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:15 pm
Um, yeah, there were some technological imbalances in those examples that tilt the other direction here. But anyway, I wish the Ukrainians and Taiwanese nothing but the best sincerely. I hope they make the very best of bad situations.
What is it like to be 100% certain about everything, even when you're proven wrong?
stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:15 pm
Um, yeah, there were some technological imbalances in those examples that tilt the other direction here. But anyway, I wish the Ukrainians and Taiwanese nothing but the best sincerely. I hope they make the very best of bad situations.
What is it like to be 100% certain about everything, even when you're proven wrong?
Please tell me what it is that you are 100% certain I have been proven wrong about.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:41 pmso I am able to give you the simple, unvarnished truth, which is that a relatively small country next to a huge country has no fighting chance.
dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:08 pm
Except…Japan which colonized China;
Israel, which is 9 miles wide in some places devastated the armies of its relatively massive neighbors, all at once; little Britain ruled half the world.
stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:15 pm
Um, yeah, there were some technological imbalances in those examples that tilt the other direction here.
Ok, well good luck to Ukraine in trying to defeat Russia. And good luck to Taiwan in trying to defeat China. I wish them well. I have my doubts that Israel going up against Egypt and Japan going up against China in the 1930s (when Japan was quite strong and China was in the middle of a civil war I guess) are good analogies, but perhaps you're right. I suggest we revisit in a few years and see how Ukraine is doing, and if a war between Taiwan and China has started, we can see how Taiwan is doing.
Dualstow made a joke I guess quoting Lloyd Christmas, whoever that is, saying something about still having a chance. Here's one thing that there is 100% certainty about, no chance involved: the more money the US gives to Ukraine, the longer Zelensky will keep fighting, and the more people will die. He's not using volunteers by now. The more money we give him, just gives him more chance to grab more conscripts off the street and send them up to the front to die in the meat grinder. What is it like for you to be 100% certain that that is not a bad way for the US to spend its money?
The money is the least of the concern for me. It's the number of lives lost that's sickening. But if we want to think about the money a bit, all that money is deficit spending, which of course just translates into inflation here at home. And inflation hits poor people by far the hardest. So, all that money is just going to make the fat cats at Raytheon etc. richer, get more people killed in Ukraine, and hurt our own poor people the most by making their paltry wages buy even less. So again I ask you: what is it like for you to be 100% certain that this is a good idea for US spending?
Your all-or-nothing mindset is really coloring how you look at things. I'm not 100% certain about this, or most any other, issue. I said that the US military is overall a force for good in the world. Am I 100% certain about that? No. But I do think it's the case.
This is a discussion forum, not a berating forum. If you came here and said "Look, here's my take on the Ukraine situation, for this reason and this reason and this reason. What do you guys think?" then that would be a good way to have a discussion. If you posted a news article saying "this seems like a bad idea to me" or "this seems like a good idea to me" that would be a good way to have a discussion.
Instead, every post is about how right you are and how any opinion that doesn't match yours entirely is not just incorrect but unconscionable. That is no way at all to have a discussion.
We've had people with that attitude in the past, and they don't have particularly long careers here.
stuper1 wrote: the more money the US gives to Ukraine, the longer Zelensky will keep fighting, and the more people will die
Could be. The Russians have adapted and are fighting more intelligently than at the war’s outset.
The other side of that that coin though is what Putin is doing. Does Vladimir Putin really think he’s going to get nuked? Maybe, but he knows he would have to provoke it. This is not to say that NATO missiles based so close are not scary; I’m sure they are.
Putin is using a lot of Russian men in the prime of their lives as cannon fodder. They are way more likely to die while fighting in Ukraine than getting nuked at home. Do you agree?
Kinda feels like he’s protecting himself, not Russian citizens.
(I should acknowledge here that not every Ukrainian is fighting of his/her own volition. I realize there’s conscription).
What would the US do if say China and Canada were developing a close relationship and it was beginning to look like Canada would allow China's nuclear-tipped missiles into Canada pointed at the US?
A lot of people like to point to the Cuba missile crisis when thinking about that question. That's a good point of comparison, sure. But what about the Iraq war? Isn't that an even better point of comparison? Didn't we show what we would do when someone supposedly has WMDs and is supposedly soon to use them against us? And that was half way around the world not right on our border. How much quicker and stronger would our response be if it was right on our border?
So, tell me, what do you think our response would be to the scenario of China putting missiles in Canada pointed at the US?
We can afford to be even more cynical about Iraq. According to Woodward’s ‘Plan of Attack’, it was more about 9-11 than a true fear of Saddam’s weapons. Should have just focused on Afghanistan and KSA. But let’s put that aside.
First and foremost, we have built up a lot of goodwill with Canada (we’re not always so terrible. Russia, meanwhile, mostly has other pariahs for friends). In a scenario in which Canada is willing to host Putin’s nukes, we would have a very weighty problem on our hands before those nukes even arrive. An enemy right on the border.
Now, I understand why former Soviet bloc states fear and loathe Russia. I don’t know what we would have to do to draw such ire from our northern brethren, but I would imagine it would be something that simmered slowly, over time. In that case, my first step would be to try to talk Canada out of that.
If you mean this is an abrupt action taken by Canada taken out of the blue, then I would immediately nuke Canada. Obviously.
No, I don't mean an abrupt action. I mean a slow action developing over 30 years just as the Ukraine situation has developed over the last 30 years, and Russia has tried many, many times to talk Ukraine out of it and has told the West that missiles in Ukraine are a red line that shouldn't be crossed. What would we do if the same thing happened in Canada and China/Canada refused to listen? The scenario doesn't depend on who is in the right morally. I don't even care if the US did or didn't do something bad to Canada to justify this action. Or if Canada just somehow decided they like China better than the US for no good reason or for a good reason. What would the US do in this scenario? I'm 101% sure of what the US would do, but I'm the one who gets accused of being 100% certain too much, so maybe I should listen to cooler heads.
Ok, so the U.S. may or may not have invaded Canada in 2014 and seized territory but it doesn’t matter. Hmm.
I suppose we would approach our NATO thugs friends to jointly condemn the action and then, yes, do something about removing those nukes. But that’s if the nukes are already there. If it’s just a promise to host the nukes, I don’t know.
The scenario is getting muddled somehow, probably my fault. Nobody invaded anybody in 2014. There was possibly a coup in 2014, depending on who you ask, but definitely leadership in Ukraine changed from pro-Russian to anti-Russian, and the Russians say that the US facilitated or encouraged that change. How would the US feel if China facilitated or encouraged Canada to change to an anti-US government? Also, keep in mind that many ethnic Russians live in Ukraine and supposedly started facing a lot of mistreatment (even not a few deaths) from the new anti-Russian government in Ukraine. How does that impact the scenario when Canada, with its new anti-US government, starts mistreating and killing say American emigres living in Canada? You don't think the US people would be up in arms about this situation? Do we have to have a firebrand say like Trump in charge to inflame this situation? No, clearly not, the US population would be inflamed even if milquetoast Mitt Romney were president in that situation. And now it looks like they are going to put missiles in Canada as well. Well, we need to talk about this and form a committee and deliberate for a while. No, not a chance, our fine boys and girls (and now boys who started as girls) from the Pentagon and Rand would say that we go in right away and take care of that situation to nip it in the bud before it has a chance to get worse. That seems to fit with how they do things, but I'm not a mind reader, so I could be wrong. You can disagree with me. That's fine. That's how I see it playing out, and I think something similar is what played out in Ukraine.
