any country that a) is politically hostile to the US, b) possesses nuclear weapons, and c) the means to deliver them to the US, poses a direct, and existential, threat to the US. Currently, Russia, China, and North Korea qualify. if we consider unconventional delivery methods, or undeclared arsenals, or political ambiguity, perhaps there are others (Pakistan, I'm looking at you.) so it boggles the mind why some folks want to enable nuclear programs in states that are manifestly hostile to the US.
I'm more concerned about any nation-state using it on another than I am about one using it on the US. The use of a nuclear weapon is so unpopular that any government that uses it will be quickly replaced, either by a other nuke or by its own people. Once the first one is used, the next one will be easier. NK is a huge problem. They have nothing to lose. We should be doing everything possible to modernize NK. Iran is more difficult because of their backwards ideology. Iran is likely the one to use it
lets be real here for a second. There are so many insanely stupid people in this thread. The strength of the military, and who invades and who bends over for the last 3 decades (as an indicator) should tell you that while another nuclear weapon hasn't been deployed, it doesn't mean it can't. Russia has thermonuclear weapons. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons. Ukraine is thriving on support and intelligence from the U.S. If Russia so wishes it, a small scale tactical nuke can end this sooner than I'm done typing this message. Having taken the side of the liberals on this board for so many years its hard for me to fathom how utterly stupid and narrative seeking this bunch are. If @SamFisher is arguing along side you (take a look at his GARM harden/morey takes), chances are you're a dumbshit too.
You're a smart guy. There was a pretty credible intelligence report regarding the Ukrainian propaganda. Again, read my post above. If you think China or Russia (the strongest nations outside the U.S) are unable to end the conflict if they so wanted you have to be dumb.
Except average Americans also Benefit from flowing supply chains so in this case if we abandon Ukraine that will be a signal the PRC that we wouldn’t stand up for Taiwan and a PRC invasion of Taiwan likely leads to a global depression. Besides that given that Ukraine has signaled its determination to fight simply abandoning them doesn’t mean the war ends. It Likely means that they fight asymmetrically which also means that things like Ukrainian grain doesn’t flow. It also means Europe out of fear of an expansionist Russia and dealing With waves of refugees also sees their economies disrupted more which leads To more economic chaos and greater prices for all sorts of things. As I’ve mentioned to other posters this idea that were driving Ukraine to fight and If we simply don’t support them peace will break out is not only simplistic but unsupported by facts.
So what do your propose then. That we just simply let Russia have its way because they might use a nuke? How is that going to work with dealing with any other nuclear armed country?
I guess I shouldn’t surprised that there are some on the Left and Right her who simply believe that abandoning Ukraine can lead to a lasting peace with Russia where they honor commitments and act like a Responsible nation. What happened in 2014 shows how much Putin can be trusted. More likely if Putin were to be able to take Ukraine there’s nothing to indicate he wouldn’t just continue to use energy as a weapon and now grain supplies. Also now that he knows the US will just cave because of high gas prices there’s no reason he shouldn’t just press onto Moldova and other former Soviet states.
Every time i see this - man what an ignorant piece of **** the Republicans gave us/ are giving us Disgusting
I don't believe Putin has the necessary capital with his people, I think he is ousted if he goes full mobilization, or drops a nuke. He has cornered himself. DD
excellent article in the WSJ about how technology, particularly drones, is upending existing western military doctrine. one wonders how these changes would be applied to the defense of Taiwan. https://www.wsj.com/world/drones-ev...aping-modern-warfare-bf5d531b?mod=djem10point a few graphs: “Today, a column of tanks or a column of advancing troops can be discovered in three to five minutes and hit in another three minutes. The survivability on the move is no more than 10 minutes,” said Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy commander of Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service. “Surprises have become very difficult to achieve.” The technological revolution triggered by the Ukraine war, Europe’s biggest conflict in nearly eight decades, is calling into question the feasibility of some of the basic concepts of American military doctrine. Combined-arms maneuvers using large groups of armored vehicles and tanks to make rapid breakthroughs—something that Washington and its allies had expected the Ukrainian offensive this summer to achieve—may no longer be possible in principle, some soldiers here say. The inevitable implication, according to Ukrainian commanders, is that the conflict won’t end soon. “The days of massed armored assaults, taking many kilometers of ground at a time, like we did in 2003 in Iraq—that stuff is gone because the drones have become so effective now,” said retired U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Bradley Crawford, an Iraq war veteran who is now training Ukrainian forces near Bakhmut in a private capacity. And, in a potential conflict with a lesser power, America’s overall military edge may also not be as decisive as previously thought. “It’s a question of cost,” said Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “If you can destroy an expensive, heavy system for something that costs much much less, then actually the power differential between the two countries doesn’t matter as much.” <snip> The Russians, too, have formidable—and fast-improving—drone capabilities of their own. Minutes after the Center “A” team tried to establish a position in the Chasiv Yar high-rise, it was spotted by a Russian drone and the building was targeted by mortar fire. The Ukrainian troopers quickly ran from the building and then filtered back in groups of two, at long intervals. While drones have played an outsize role in Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, both the sheer number of unmanned aircraft and their effectiveness have increased significantly, with Moscow quickly catching up and sometimes surpassing Ukraine’s capabilities. New types of drones, developed domestically and imported, are reaching the battlefield all the time—including naval drones that Ukraine has successfully used to damage Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Many drones that were effective just months earlier have become outdated fast and need to be re-engineered to defeat enemy jamming, commanders say. “Nothing stands firm,” said the commander of the Ukrainian Navy, Vice Adm. Oleksiy Neizhpapa, in an interview. “War is the time when technology develops. Every operation is different, and if you repeat it the same way, it would make no sense because the enemy already has an antidote.” Since last fall, however, Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands of troops, plugging gaps in defense and laying out extensive minefields and fortifications. Crucially, it has also saturated the front line with drones. In June, as Ukraine kicked off its counteroffensive, every time its forces gathered more than a few tanks and infantry fighting vehicles together, their columns were quickly spotted by ubiquitous Russian drones and then targeted by a combination of artillery, missiles fired from choppers and swarms of drones. Minefields channeled these columns into kill zones. <snip> “Unfortunately, most of our offensive is now on foot,” said Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, the commander of HUR. “You could see a mirror picture last fall, when the Russians were carrying out their own offensive, above all in Bakhmut. The same way, the use of heavy armor was minimal, everyone was waging war on foot. I don’t think anything will be different now.” The bloody war fought by Ukraine is the kind of conflict that the U.S. military hasn’t experienced since Korea in the 1950s. Modern Western military training and defense procurement have been shaped by decades of counterinsurgency operations against much weaker opponents in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. That has led to a focus on costly and sophisticated weapons systems that don’t survive long in a full-scale conflict with a comparable adversary. “A lot of Western armor doesn’t work here because it had been created not for an all-out war but for conflicts of low or medium intensity. If you throw it into a mass offensive, it just doesn’t perform,”
I'm not entirely sure what the positions of @Space Ghost, @LosPollosHermanos, and @glynch are on this war. If their stance is to let Ukraine fend for itself against Russia, which would likely lead to a relatively swift Ukrainian defeat followed by a prolonged Ukrainian insurgency against Russian occupation, then I suppose that is their stance - to trust that Putin will not move beyond Ukraine after conquering it. Putin is a de facto dictator who kills, jails, and suppresses his political rivals, opponents, and journalists domestically. He has publicly stated his rejection of the "breakaway" ex-Soviet republics becoming fully independent after the 1991 dissolution of the USSR. He has also voiced dissatisfaction with Russia losing international power due to that 1991 breakup. Putin has put these words into action, attacking "breakaway" regions or groups such as Georgia, Chechen separatists, and now Ukraine. He annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and expanded his military aggression in 2021. He has threatened other "breakaway" regions like Moldova and the Baltic states. Given his pattern of aggression and past statements, I think giving Putin free reign to operate only invites further aggression down the line. The idea that he would be satisfied and stop after conquering Ukraine strikes me as foolish.
I have not read a too much of this thread. Can you please explain what you are referring to “insanely stupid” ideas are? Also how your opinion differs in regards to what the best action to take would be.
Those here who trust Putin are mad, and I don't mean angry. Ukraine had nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union. I realize you know that, but the fools here who trust Putin either don't know it, or chose to ignore Putin's betrayal. On 23 May 1992, Russia, the U.S., Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol to the START I treaty, ahead of ratifying the treaty later. The protocol committed Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to adhere to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states as soon as possible. From NPR: Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world. Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize. In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. Now, that agreement is front and center again. Mariana Budjeryn of Harvard University spoke with All Things Considered about the legacy of the Budapest Memorandum and its impact today. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Interview highlights On whether Ukraine foresaw the impact of denuclearizing It is hard to estimate whether Ukrainians would foresee the impact. It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought. But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one. And I think perhaps there was even a certain sense of complacency on the Ukrainian part after signing this agreement to say, "Look, we have these guarantees that were signed," because incidentally, into Ukrainian and Russian, this was translated as a guarantee, not as an assurance. So they had this faith that the West would stand by them, or certainly the United States, the signatories, and Great Britain, would stand up for Ukraine should it come under threat. Although, the precise way was not really proscribed in the memorandum. On whether Russia has respected the memorandum Russia just glibly violated it. And there's a mechanism of consultations that is provided for in the memorandum should any issues arise, and it was mobilized for the first time on March 4, 2014. So there was a meeting of the signatories of the memorandum that was called by Ukraine and it did take place in Paris. And the foreign minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, who was in Paris at the time, simply did not show up. So he wouldn't even come to the meeting in connection with the memorandum. [Russia argues that it] signed it with a different government, not with this "illegitimate" one. But that, of course, does not stand to any international legal kind of criteria. You don't sign agreements with the government, you sign it with the country. On whether Ukrainians regret nuclear disarmament There certainly is a good measure of regret, and some of it is poorly informed. It would have cost Ukraine quite a bit, both economically and in terms of international political repercussions, to hold on to these arms. So it would not have been an easy decision. But in public sphere these more simple narratives take hold. The narrative in Ukraine, publicly is: We had the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, we gave it up for this signed piece of paper, and look what happened. And it really doesn't look good for the international non-proliferation regime. Because if you have a country that disarms and then becomes a target of such a threat and a victim of such a threat at the hands of a nuclear-armed country, it just sends a really wrong signal to other countries that might want to pursue nuclear weapons. On the importance of Ukraine's nuclear history today I would say, after having researched this topic for nearly a decade, Ukraine did the right thing at the time. It did the right thing by itself, and also by the international community. It reduced the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world and that makes everyone safer. Now, looking at this history, however, the guarantors — the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum especially but also the international community more broadly — needs to react in the way as to not make Ukraine doubt in the rightness of that decision. This show of solidarity that we've recently seen, in this last kind of spur of tensions, goes a really long way to convince both Ukrainian leadership but also the public that even though we gave up these nuclear weapons, or nuclear option, the world still stands by us. And we will not face this aggression alone.
Dude, you don't have to be so hard on your other GOP members....come on now.....they have feelings too. DD
