Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Chloe Jackson15 said:Whatever their actual objective is, it doesn't change the fundamental reality: you can't actually use nuclear weapons. The whole thing is just about using certain terminology for the sake of scaring the public. Anyone with half a brain understands that deploying an ultimate weapon would lead to the ultimate end—likely for everything living on this planet. So, if that's a price worth paying, be my guest. But even in The Kremlin, there are people with families and children... and they know perfectly well that such a move would mean the end for them and everyone they love most.

You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

Right. They won't react, which just gives him the green light to do it again since he got away with it the first time.
No kidding.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

We need to push Putin to the breaking point. That's when his own people will finally ditch him. There are plenty of soft spots to hit. Look at Syria, or some of those various Russian republics that aren't exactly thrilled with how things are playing out. Then you've got Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. Too many vulnerabilities, and not enough resources to cover them all.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

Yeah, right. In his head, the USA never annexed Japan.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

A true master strategist.

If he's playing on one star.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that nobody is going to react? It’s been done before, and everyone knows exactly who it was used against and why. If you honestly think Russia should just start dropping nukes because "there's a precedent," then something is seriously wrong with your logic. Get real. Using nuclear weapons is a direct ticket to WWIII and a total nuclear holocaust. Stop pretending this could somehow just "happen" and be brushed aside. It won't. That is the ultimate line in the sand.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

It is essentially a complete reset of the Budapest Memorandum... we should just return everything. We ought to replace the nuclear arsenal Ukraine gave up in exchange for guarantees regarding its territorial integrity. Let us see if Putin dares to drop nukes on a nation that possesses them in kind.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

I mean, if they weren't going to react, that would have been back before 2014. But right now? It's crystal clear. You can't just sit there when Putin acts like this—there has to be a response. Otherwise, he’s just going to see it as a sign of weakness and think he can keep going. So, yeah... you can pretty much forget about anyone ignoring the use of WMD.

Chloe Jackson15 said:Where on earth are you getting the idea that nobody is going to react? It’s been done before, and everyone knows exactly who it was used against and why. If you honestly think Russia should just start dropping nukes because "there's a precedent," then something is seriously wrong with your logic. Get real. Using nuclear weapons is a direct ticket to WWIII and a total nuclear holocaust. Stop pretending this could somehow just "happen" and be brushed aside. It won't. That is the ultimate line in the sand.

Besides, even if it did blow over... what do you think happens next? How many countries would immediately scramble to kickstart their own nuclear programs? And what kind of message does that send to regimes like Iran, South Korea, and the rest? Obviously, using them isn't an option—it won't happen without a massive response.

bluepuma9 said:We need to push Putin to the breaking point. That's when his own people will finally ditch him. There are plenty of soft spots to hit. Look at Syria, or some of those various Russian republics that aren't exactly thrilled with how things are playing out. Then you've got Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. Too many vulnerabilities, and not enough resources to cover them all.

Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

Michael Davis9 said:Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

Sure, but if you stretch them too thin, eventually the whole system starts to snap.

Christian Torres3 said:Yeah, right. In his head, the USA never annexed Japan.

Look, he’s just using nuclear weapons as a way to mitigate what would otherwise be catastrophic losses from a conventional invasion. That is the crux of the matter—it has nothing to do with annexation. I mean, if the US had the capability to drop nukes back then, why wouldn't Russia have the same option now? That is exactly what this precedent is about.
From the Russian perspective, you have Nazis and NATO teaming up against them. The fact that we view this as blatant aggression or territorial seizure... well, that doesn't really factor into how they perceive the situation. It’s a different reality entirely.
Anyway, if things actually escalate to that point, NATO isn't going to step in directly—instead, the West is just going to build a wall. They’ll start demanding that countries pick a side, and they won't hold back when asking China or India to make their stance clear.

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, he’s just using nuclear weapons as a way to mitigate what would otherwise be catastrophic losses from a conventional invasion. That is the crux of the matter—it has nothing to do with annexation. I mean, if the US had the capability to drop nukes back then, why wouldn't Russia have the same option now? That is exactly what this precedent is about.
From the Russian perspective, you have Nazis and NATO teaming up against them. The fact that we view this as blatant aggression or territorial seizure... well, that doesn't really factor into how they perceive the situation. It’s a different reality entirely.
Anyway, if things actually escalate to that point, NATO isn't going to step in directly—instead, the West is just going to build a wall. They’ll start demanding that countries pick a side, and they won't hold back when asking China or India to make their stance clear.

They'll have to react, otherwise Iran and others will just follow the Russian playbook. According to the NATO Secretary General, the response is going to be devastating for Russia.

If Russia actually pulls the trigger on nukes, they’re basically deleting themselves from the map—fast.
We’d definitely catch some fallout here in the States too, but man, Russia would be history.

bluepuma9 said:They'll have to react, otherwise Iran and others will just follow the Russian playbook. According to the NATO Secretary General, the response is going to be devastating for Russia.

Honestly? I almost hope we don't solve this dilemma right away.

Michael Davis9 said:Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

The US response would be conventional. There were probably two Arleigh Burke class destroyers near Alaska—maybe they're still there—with enough Tomahawks to level that Russian base. I doubt Putin would ever dare touch US soil.

Michael Davis9 said:Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

It’s not like they'll necessarily go nuclear, but they really HAVE to hit back hard. Like, they don't really have much of a choice here—it's either do nothing or react in a way that isn't just... weak.

Andrew Booth29 said:Honestly? I almost hope we don't solve this dilemma right away.

There isn't even a dilemma to begin with, and there shouldn't be. This is high-stakes theater, and the first one to blink loses. Putin needs to go to bed tonight knowing that if he even thinks about touching the nuclear button, he'll wake up to mushrooms sprouting all over Russia.

Christian Torres3 said:The US response would be conventional. There were probably two Arleigh Burke class destroyers near Alaska—maybe they're still there—with enough Tomahawks to level that Russian base. I doubt Putin would ever dare touch US soil.

But wait, what exactly does it mean for the USA or Ukraine to achieve "conventional leveling" of Alaska?
From my perspective, that would essentially amount to one nuclear superpower launching a direct assault on another, which just doesn't seem to align with American interests at all—especially when things are already moving along quite smoothly for them just the way they are...

bluepuma9 said:There isn't even a dilemma to begin with, and there shouldn't be. This is high-stakes theater, and the first one to blink loses. Putin needs to go to bed tonight knowing that if he even thinks about touching the nuclear button, he'll wake up to mushrooms sprouting all over Russia.

I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.