501–510 of 1001 posts
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
MAD?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.
While way off topic, why would Saudi Arabia need nuclear weapons? My understanding is they are pretty closely allied with Pakistan, a known nuclear state.
Saudi has just called back a huge multi-billion dollar loan to Pakistan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how resolve would shift if Putin were to come down with a case of polonium poisoning, or other tricks from his own repertoire?
I do not think the US does political assassinations (I may be utterly wrong here, if so, please post examples!) It does use assassinations against terrorists or quasi-political figures such as Qasem Soleimani, but I doubt that eliminating Putin is even being contemplated here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fide...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, your hypothetical is just too far detached from reality to debate — you really think Russia in 2022 is remotely strong enough to sweep across Europe, and the only thing stopping that ambition is fear of MAD? Huh? > I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose. Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actua…
The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a…
Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
I think that's a good point but I also think it's important to remember that war suuucks . A citizen in Ukraine right now is not having a good day, there have been arbitrary arrests and some fighting in the streets... but if other military powers got involved they'd be having an even worse day with mass destruction of property and loss of life. Escalating a conflict to using deadly force can be a necessary step to pr…
Are there any examples where waiting and intervening at a later point in time turned out better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think MAD is only half the equation. Even if Putin didn't possess a single nuke, (EDIT:) Nato might very well have stood by watching today, as the conventional force deployed by Putin is pretty significant in itself. Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted insta…
I think the combined might of Europe is actually quite significant. The problem is getting them to actually DO something.
i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it.
In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intervening militarily invites a counter response from Russia and could lead to outright war between NATO and Russia. It's one thing to assist Kuwait, quite another to send troops to fight a nuclear-armed adversary.
So we wait until they're doing this in Poland? I think I've seen this one before. Doesn't end well for anyone involved. Better to hit an enemy when they're not expecting it.
I'm genuinely curious at what point a bully threatening you with MAD can be stopped if you value the existence of your own civilization? Say Russian conquers all of Ukraine and moves troops to the Polish border and parks some tanks a bit inside. What then? Strongly worded essays? If Russia isn't raining hell on Poland, then NATO is forced to .. apply sanctions, make threats, but take no action since the escalation an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 Yes Prime Minister: Salami Tactics.
That was brilliant and very nearly what I was saying. The threshold for actual nuclear war is so high that a belligerent actor could theoretically push quite far by exploiting the natural tendency of the adversary to not desire mutual destruction. I'm not sure our leaders know what the actual "line" is because there isn't one. Will America MAD to save Europe? I do think it's possible that full-on WW3 engagement with…
The respective countries as a whole, yes. But individual actors in the war will still be driven to the brink, so you also need to count on countries not retaliating when a stray nuke detonates in their territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a good point but I also think it's important to remember that war suuucks . A citizen in Ukraine right now is not having a good day, there have been arbitrary arrests and some fighting in the streets... but if other military powers got involved they'd be having an even worse day with mass destruction of property and loss of life. Escalating a conflict to using deadly force can be a necessary step to pr…
That happened in the Spanish civil war. Guernica famous painting depicts the bombing by Italian and German aviation of the city of Guernica. The United Kingdom didn't wanted to be part of it, thou. Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.
In the Spanish civil war the other side was also bombing cities like Oviedo and killing civilians for a much longer time and killing way more people than Guernica.
You are confusing things there, the revolt in Spain had nothing to do with Italians and Germans at first. It was a local war that unfortunately for Spain became the test for the new world war.
The other side were not supported by Hitler, but they were supported by Stalin. And they established Chekas in Spain being way more terrible than Franco.
With Paracuellos massacres, the neutral observers were intercepted in air, following Stalin orders.
During the war the flow of people changing sides were unanimously from "republicans" side to "nationals" side, because of the red terror and incompetency, just like with the Iron Curtain, few people went the other way.
>Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.
Absolutely non sense. Poland was invaded by BOTH Germany and Russia at the same time because they were allies. Lenin and later Stalin created such a miserable regime with communism that they planned to invade Europe to sustain Russia economy from the start.
That was called "financing the economy through imperialistic practices, just like any other European country in the past".