OK.
Posted on 09/25/2024 4:28:09 PM PDT by McGruff
I stand by what I said.
When was the last time the Rooskis actually had a successful nuclear test, as in actually lighting one off?
I would hope we did the same thing if in the same position.
Skin that smokewagon, and see what happens, snek.
TOTALLY agree.
That’s the proof that idiot has, that they haven’t launched any. It’s so stupid it hurts. It’s third grade logic.
Putin revises Russia’s nuclear doctrine to grant use of deterrent ‘at any time’
[Still think there’s an election in November?]
Good question
The recent changes to President Putin’s nuclear doctrine certainly escalate the stakes in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. By declaring that aggression against Russia—especially when supported by a nuclear power—could be treated as a joint attack, Putin is signaling a lower threshold for nuclear engagement. This alteration is particularly alarming given his assertions that even conventional military actions could justify a nuclear response.
If the US and Britain were to assist Ukraine in striking deep into Russian territory, utilizing American satellites for targeting, it could be perceived by Moscow as crossing a dangerous line. Such actions could be interpreted not just as support for Ukraine but as direct involvement by NATO powers in the conflict, heightening the risk of miscalculation or misinterpretation.
Putin’s emphasis on responding to perceived threats from various military platforms—including drones and missiles—suggests that even small-scale military engagements could trigger an exaggerated response. This creates a precarious situation where both sides may act under the pressure of rapid escalation, leading to a breakdown in communications and potentially catastrophic outcomes.
Moreover, the rhetoric surrounding the use of nuclear weapons reflects a shift towards a more aggressive stance, where the use of such weapons is not just a deterrent but could be viewed as an option in response to conventional threats. This development increases the potential for a nuclear holocaust, especially if there are significant misjudgments or if one side misreads the intentions of the other.
In this volatile environment, it is crucial for Donald Trump to be elected in order to engage in de-escalation strategies and reinforce diplomatic channels. The stakes are incredibly high, and the consequences of a nuclear exchange would be devastating not only for the immediate parties involved but for the entire world.
OK.
So you adhere to the FAFO philosophy. Which gravely endangers all of NATO. You seem to be bereft of brains and of caring for the populace. You are saying, when Russia fires nukes at NATO, they will be duds.
And you cannot see how phenomenally moronic that is.
Russia is promising it. They have the capability. And you don’t care.
Yours is the very posture of a warmongering neocon.
Thanks for that excellent analysis. I’d say you are right on.
Scott Ritter had a similar analysis recently.
Ritter said we have no competent diplomats who are knowledgeable of how the Russians think or who even want to understand them.
I think their taking down our grid is very possible/probable.
The people in charge want huge population reductions and taking down the grid would accomplish that. After about 8 months they could walk in and turn on the lights again. No damage to the infrastructure, etc.
If the grid goes down, who did it? Our people in one of the alphabet agencies or a foreign power?
Prove it, huckleberry.
This guy?
The long, complicated public life of Scott Ritter, Bethlehem man scrutinized by FBI
I recognize you and want no further posts to me from you.
So many scenarios. Here's just one more.
I’m your huckleberry snake.
You will find your kindred pathetic neocon souls at DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.