Should we first strike Putin?
- Thread starter Weeg
- Start date
OP
OP
- Messages
- 15,127
- Location
- United States
Suthern hemisphere won’t be too bad. Northern hemisphere will be destroyed
OP
OP
- Messages
- 15,127
- Location
- United States
Yoo scared? Yoo all must find a cave and stock it up
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
It doesnt matter.
One side believes its in our best interest to give Putin a wide berth and allow him to take Ukraine to use as a buffer between Russia and the West. They believe allowing this will placate the Russians and they will never go further.
The other side which includes me, believes Putin will never have enough. We've watched him take other lands while we've done nothing, only to see him move forward again a few years later.
There will always be these 2 sides. Say he takes Romania or Latvia, Estonia, etc. There will be those who say nuclear war is too risky. I say we keep supplying the Ukrainians with weaponry no matter what. If they run out of gas and no longer wish to fight, fine.
However, if Putin then moves on anyone else, we should openly declare we are ready to stop him at ANY cost, including nuclear annihilation.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Well, we certainly should defend our borders!
I'd rather sane people decide that we all live on one planet... sane people who understand wind and ocean currents as how they relate to everybody.
I'd also like my mother in Northern Michigan to not die from poisoning....or worse yet..... mob violence.
Isn't a buffer or neutral zone desirable as opposed to a planet wide war zone?
NATO was previously happy with such things and even offered assurances after the fall of USSR that they wouldn't encroach.
What happened?
NATO encroached.
If you want your American borders secure....particularly along Mexico, and you obviously agreed with JFK's stance that ICBM's in Cuba were a red line, how can you fault Russia for feeling boxed in?
NATO is coming for them.... yet NATO was only formed and tasked about the USSR.
Russia is not the USSR.
....but NATO wants them to be, again.
OP
OP
- Messages
- 15,127
- Location
- United States
That will never happen. Momma sez the world has always been a dangerous place and as the trillions more peeple all are trying to get what resources are left it will get worse. The end of man is neer!
OP
OP
- Messages
- 15,127
- Location
- United States
With out borders yoo don’t have a country!
- Messages
- 35,399
Why? To a fuck up, and his country?
OP
OP
- Messages
- 15,127
- Location
- United States
- Messages
- 35,399
Is NATO some sort of animal? Pray for NATO.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
As I'm reading the history, there was never a guarantee to Russia that Nato wouldnt expand. That is a flat out falsehood.
putin wants a buffer between russia and NATO, so what does he do?
attempts 2 absorb ukraine which guarantees the opposite
How much old window paint have you snorted?
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
I didnt write the history.
"Mending fences would include Gore’s description to Yeltsin of the parallel NATO and U.S.-Russia tracks as spaceships docking simultaneously and very carefully, and Gore and then Clinton assuring the Russians (but not in writing, as Kozyrev kept asking for) that no NATO action on new members would happen before the 1995 Duma elections or the 1996 presidential elections in Russia."
"The final assurance was Clinton’s agreement (despite Russia’s brutal Chechen war and multiple domestic pressures) to come to Moscow in May 1995 for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the victory over Hitler. In Moscow, Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.” But Yeltsin also saw Clinton would do whatever he could to ensure Yeltsin’s re-election in 1996, and that mattered the most to him. Only after that Moscow summit would Yeltsin order Kozyrev to sign Russia up for the Partnership for Peace."
- Messages
- 1,836
What a thing it would be to witness nukes flying in my lifetime! And to be honest, if cities like New York and Toronto were glassed in a global thermonuclear war, it would only be an improvement. I'd be fine where I live.
- Messages
- 1,836
I doubt it. I have no family that lives in a large city or near an area that would be nuke worthy. We'd be fine.
You don't understand old or new nuclear conflict warfare... the old dealt with capital cities but the surrounding regions could cope.
The new seeks to atmospherically burst and knock out vehicle electronics, water treatment plants, and supply chains overall....initially.
And as each nation feels more and more fucked (like Russia with its millions capable bunkers), it escalates...
Should research this stuff.... it's an eye-opener...
- Messages
- 1,836
If nukes started flying, I doubt Russia would waste many nukes on Canada. Much of the country is sparsely populated... would make no sense to nuke it. They'll focus the nukes on the US.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
If you are saying its a lie, a-ok. I'm open to reading alternate sources.
Its been my experience that this source is pretty reliable though.
They wouldn't have to waste much on a hypersonic EMP burst over Canada or Australia...
The non ruggedized infrastructure and gear we rely on would die. Water treatment plants, vehicles, fuel refineries would all die. Home electronics and cellphones would cease. Within a week, people would turn on each other.
- Messages
- 1,836
This is why rural living has the advantage. Water isn't a problem in my region, and many here are self sufficient.
I would imagine big problems for city folk though.
Similar threads
