Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Steven Kim35 said:If someone actually managed to hit the Golden Gate Bridge, then maybe Putin would finally have an excuse to claim he’s being attacked.

And what happens after that? Does Putin just launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine?😕

velvetbadger11 said:I have this nagging suspicion that Americans are practically itching for Russia to make one fatal misstep—perhaps an attack on a NATO member—just so they can unleash a full-scale conventional airstrike. It feels as though there’s a silent consensus among the nuclear powers to avoid the brinkmanship of atomic weapons and simply go all out with conventional force instead.

NATO would probably be careful not to cross over into Russian territory, but if the Russian military actually stepped foot inside a NATO member state, there wouldn't be much left of them. NATO jets would just circle overhead and hammer their targets; we wouldn't even need ground troops...

Angela Brooks4 said:I believe this comes down to a simple matter of parental instinct. If they truly cared for their own children, they wouldn't act this way. After all, if they were to trigger a nuclear exchange, those same weapons would fall directly upon their own families' heads that very same day. Does it not stand to reason that one would protect their own blood?

Honestly, Putin might be an idiot—and let's face it, he's just a huge ego-maniac—but his bigger problem is probably the fact that over there, it feels like almost any random guy could launch a nuke. Plus, you've got to wonder what some hot-headed officer on the front lines might do if they're just itching to pull the trigger.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Honestly, Putin might be an idiot—and let's face it, he's just a huge ego-maniac—but his bigger problem is probably the fact that over there, it feels like almost any random guy could launch a nuke. Plus, you've got to wonder what some hot-headed officer on the front lines might do if they're just itching to pull the trigger.

Come on, let’s be realistic... saying just any random person can launch nukes seems like a bit of a stretch.😵

briskbear51 said:Come on, let’s be realistic... saying just any random person can launch nukes seems like a bit of a stretch.😵

So, did you guys see how they handle those nuclear missile launches? Seriously, that whole Cold War scare almost triggered a full-blown nuclear holocaust just because a single sub can basically go rogue and launch on its own if they want to. I mean, yeah, technically three people had to agree on it—two of them actually did—but what they didn't need was a green light from the White House. It makes you think... any idiot could conclude that maybe Putler is being way too soft and ready to start some serious bullshit.

Nicole James said:They don't have six or seven thousand. Let's be realistic—nuclear projectiles require constant, highly specialized, and expert maintenance to remain viable. It has become painfully obvious that the Russians can barely manage to maintain the tires on their own trucks, let alone complex weaponry. While they undoubtedly possess some functional nuclear capabilities, it isn't anywhere near the level they constantly boast about. If they actually made the decision to launch an attack against NATO, it would effectively mean the end of Russia, one way or another.

Even if they did have 6,000, it's still a disaster.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, did you guys see how they handle those nuclear missile launches? Seriously, that whole Cold War scare almost triggered a full-blown nuclear holocaust just because a single sub can basically go rogue and launch on its own if they want to. I mean, yeah, technically three people had to agree on it—two of them actually did—but what they didn't need was a green light from the White House. It makes you think... any idiot could conclude that maybe Putler is being way too soft and ready to start some serious bullshit.

In that case, maybe the rest of the world should just surrender now, seeing as Russia is packed with plenty of other idiots holding bombs besides just the leadership.

In my humble opinion, their chain of command is actually more rigid than ours here in the States; even for a minor tactical maneuver, whether it’s an advance or a retreat, they seem to have to check in with the White House first.

velvetbadger11 said:In my humble opinion, their chain of command is actually more rigid than ours here in the States; even for a minor tactical maneuver, whether it’s an advance or a retreat, they seem to have to check in with the White House first.

That is incredibly naive. There is absolutely no logical basis for equating the field command of a standard unit with the command protocols governing nuclear weapons.

For heaven's sake, there are fundamental differences between how a unit makes decisions on the front lines and how those in charge of nuclear assets operate.

A little bit of common sense wouldn't hurt here.
Best regards,

Sean Watson3 said:In that case, maybe the rest of the world should just surrender now, seeing as Russia is packed with plenty of other idiots holding bombs besides just the leadership.

That’s really the million-dollar question, though. Like, what happens if Putler just decides it’s easier to say, "Hey, I actually really love your land, so it belongs to Russia now. Either hand it over or I’ll just nuke you"? Maybe he won't pull that on NATO members, but what about Ukraine? Or Mongolia? Mexico? Just a whole bunch of other countries?

What if some idiot on a submarine decides it's way simpler to ask for forgiveness than permission?

Melissa Rivera5 said:That’s really the million-dollar question, though. Like, what happens if Putler just decides it’s easier to say, "Hey, I actually really love your land, so it belongs to Russia now. Either hand it over or I’ll just nuke you"? Maybe he won't pull that on NATO members, but what about Ukraine? Or Mongolia? Mexico? Just a whole bunch of other countries?

What if some idiot on a submarine decides it's way simpler to ask for forgiveness than permission?

Honestly, it doesn't make much sense to lose sleep over it. As long as nuclear weapons exist, that shadow is going to be hanging over us. It’s not even common knowledge that we almost had a total nuclear meltdown back during the Yeltsin era. I guess someone up there is watching out for us.

As gentlerider7 pointed out, there’s really nothing you can do about that.

We already saw how those retreats played out in Crimea. Just brace yourself.

It’s been said a thousand times: a tyrant only understands force. It’s either surrender everything or fight back.

William Anderson5 said:NATO would probably be careful not to cross over into Russian territory, but if the Russian military actually stepped foot inside a NATO member state, there wouldn't be much left of them. NATO jets would just circle overhead and hammer their targets; we wouldn't even need ground troops...

Yeah, let's all just sleep better at night believing that.

But honestly, we’d probably end up facing the same mess the EU dealt with during those migrant surges—once they cross your borders, they become your headache.

Unless, of course, the Americans decide to step in and fix everything on their own again.

Kenneth Perez15 said:Yeah, let's all just sleep better at night believing that.

But honestly, we’d probably end up facing the same mess the EU dealt with during those migrant surges—once they cross your borders, they become your headache.

Unless, of course, the Americans decide to step in and fix everything on their own again.

That would pretty much mean the instant death of NATO.

Melissa Rivera5 said:That would pretty much mean the instant death of NATO.

Everyone here keeps recycling the same old argument—that NATO is just a ghost organization—regardless of which side you're on.

Kenneth Perez15 said:Yeah, let's all just sleep better at night believing that.

But honestly, we’d probably end up facing the same mess the EU dealt with during those migrant surges—once they cross your borders, they become your headache.

Unless, of course, the Americans decide to step in and fix everything on their own again.

There isn't any doubt that NATO would respond with conventional strikes. If NATO failed to act in a situation like that, it would essentially mean the collapse of Western civilization as we know it.

In reality, Putin can't afford to think for even a second that NATO won't react. If he starts believing that, he'll strike. It's absurd, but the only thing preventing a larger war is keeping Putin convinced that NATO will actually show up.
That’s why we need to be firm and uncompromising in Ukraine right now, so that little guy in the White House realizes NATO knows how to play the game too. Because if he thinks we won't, then we're looking at WW3...

William Anderson5 said:There isn't any doubt that NATO would respond with conventional strikes. If NATO failed to act in a situation like that, it would essentially mean the collapse of Western civilization as we know it.

In reality, Putin can't afford to think for even a second that NATO won't react. If he starts believing that, he'll strike. It's absurd, but the only thing preventing a larger war is keeping Putin convinced that NATO will actually show up.
That’s why we need to be firm and uncompromising in Ukraine right now, so that little guy in the White House realizes NATO knows how to play the game too. Because if he thinks we won't, then we're looking at WW3...

I wouldn't call it absurd, though. That's kind of the whole point of the NATO alliance. What's actually absurd is that Putin wants to shrink NATO, and his plan to get there is just launching a stupid attack on a country—which is literally what the alliance was built to stop.

that lowlife said:When Putin tried to join NATO, they basically slammed the door in his face. And why? Because NATO was specifically designed to destabilize, divide, and strip Russia bare! It’s all part of an agenda to expand a new kind of empire, fueled by their whole mess of Nazi-adjacent, pagan, and LGBT parade ideologies. As an American who actually respects traditional values, you really ought to grasp this reality instead of waiting for some brainwashing machine like Al Jazeera or CNN to spoon-feed it to you.

You conveniently left out Mexico—they wouldn't be busy looting Russia if they weren't already busy doing the exact same thing to Mexico.
Best regards,

Melissa Rivera5 said:I wouldn't call it absurd, though. That's kind of the whole point of the NATO alliance. What's actually absurd is that Putin wants to shrink NATO, and his plan to get there is just launching a stupid attack on a country—which is literally what the alliance was built to stop.

Yeah, I'm with you there. All Russia did was make NATO look more necessary than ever. In the long run? We're looking at WW3.

that little brat said:even the other 90% of the world isn't

I am telling you once again: NATO is a defensive alliance.
Do you actually grasp the concept? 🤔
Mexico and Russia aren't even members of NATO.
You asked for an argument, so there it is. Consider it delivered.
Best,