Nuclear War

[jmparret]

Jack,

It is good to get a professional response. I never trusted models either, especially the warming ones.

It might not get us to the gates number but it would reduce the population of the world significantly.

Many here talk of many bombs going off.

I just hope no nuclear war occurs.

Joe

[Navigator]

But wouldn't France of the UK nuke Russia to stop the total destruction of Western Europe? That seems reasonable enough.

Americans will never cower to an enemy; it goes against our ethos. If the migrant population gains power, they would. Cowering to the stronger is why the third world is third world. In Mexico, might makes right, but not in America. I honestly believe that Americans would choose nuclear war. I hope they would. Living like a beaten dog is worse than death.

When the Russians attacked Georgia in 2008, Russian troops communicated with cell phones and looted supermarkets for food. Russian logistics are very poor.

France has actually lost a war and been occupied. The French found that this condition was temporary. Similarly, East Germany was occupied by an invading army for about fifty years, in a much longer, though still temporary situation.

France is not going to nuke Moscow and get Paris nuked in return in order to "save" Europe (nor would UK make the same move involving London). Because such devastation would be PERMANENT.

Europe ending up under Russia like it did under Nazi Germany in 1940 would be viewed by sane people as a temporary situation.

America would not roll over in WW3, any attack would generate a response similar to Pearl Harbor.

Yes, the Russian Army has a host of problems. And logistics is a big one. But NATO has similar yet worse problems (as in motivation to actually fight).

[Navigator]

I almost cannot believe my thinking has come to this, but it occurred to me the other day that the democrat "master plan" may be to surrender to the Chinese after a pre-emptive attack such as that described by Navigator, telling us "it's for our own good." They could then use that as a basis to declare martial law, outlaw private weapons, outlaw dissenting views in any media, etc. They would welcome the Chinese sending forces to the U.S. to "assist with the transformation." I don't think it would work out as they imagine, but I've come to believe they're stupid enough and evil enough to try it.

Navigator, please tell me I'm crazy.

While things may look pretty dire, especially given the caliber of US leadership, I cannot see the Democrats surrendering to the Chinese.

The reason I cannot see the Democrats surrendering is that they would forever loose the support of those that currently only loosely support them (the so called "swing voter"). When attacked, the American "Pearl Harbor" mentality will kick in, and it will be hell-fire and vengeance against those that started it.

The US will eventually be victorious in WW3, but we may feel like France after WW1 in achieving victory, drained of economic resources, drained of the best blood of an entire generation.

[Navigator]

I also have religious reasons for my belief in the sequence of events that will shortly play out.

I will start to post those in the Theology thread soon.

[Guest]

But wouldn't France of the UK nuke Russia to stop the total destruction of Western Europe? That seems reasonable enough.

Americans will never cower to an enemy; it goes against our ethos. If the migrant population gains power, they would. Cowering to the stronger is why the third world is third world. In Mexico, might makes right, but not in America. I honestly believe that Americans would choose nuclear war. I hope they would. Living like a beaten dog is worse than death.

When the Russians attacked Georgia in 2008, Russian troops communicated with cell phones and looted supermarkets for food. Russian logistics are very poor.

France has actually lost a war and been occupied. The French found that this condition was temporary. Similarly, East Germany was occupied by an invading army for about fifty years, in a much longer, though still temporary situation.

France is not going to nuke Moscow and get Paris nuked in return in order to "save" Europe (nor would UK make the same move involving London). Because such devastation would be PERMANENT.

Europe ending up under Russia like it did under Nazi Germany in 1940 would be viewed by sane people as a temporary situation.

America would not roll over in WW3, any attack would generate a response similar to Pearl Harbor.

Yes, the Russian Army has a host of problems. And logistics is a big one. But NATO has similar yet worse problems (as in motivation to actually fight).

Vladimir Putin warns NATO 'everyone will be turned to radioactive ash' over Ukraine moves

Vladimir Putin's media mouthpiece Dmitry Kiselyov warned US-led aggression could lead to a nuclear war and warned NATO 'everyone will be turned into radioactive ash'

Sounds like the little dog is barking a little too loudly...

Sounds to me like the Russians are scared. Time to BBQ them.

[Jubal Early]

But wouldn't France of the UK nuke Russia to stop the total destruction of Western Europe? That seems reasonable enough.

Americans will never cower to an enemy; it goes against our ethos. If the migrant population gains power, they would. Cowering to the stronger is why the third world is third world. In Mexico, might makes right, but not in America. I honestly believe that Americans would choose nuclear war. I hope they would. Living like a beaten dog is worse than death.

When the Russians attacked Georgia in 2008, Russian troops communicated with cell phones and looted supermarkets for food. Russian logistics are very poor.

France has actually lost a war and been occupied. The French found that this condition was temporary. Similarly, East Germany was occupied by an invading army for about fifty years, in a much longer, though still temporary situation.

France is not going to nuke Moscow and get Paris nuked in return in order to "save" Europe (nor would UK make the same move involving London). Because such devastation would be PERMANENT.

Europe ending up under Russia like it did under Nazi Germany in 1940 would be viewed by sane people as a temporary situation.

America would not roll over in WW3, any attack would generate a response similar to Pearl Harbor.

Yes, the Russian Army has a host of problems. And logistics is a big one. But NATO has similar yet worse problems (as in motivation to actually fight).

Being occupied by the Germans or the Americans is entirely different from being occupied by the Russians. The Germans know what Russian occupation will mean: mass rape and mass murder. I don't think the French will view the Russian army in the same light as they did the Germans in WW II. I spoke with some elderly French back in 2001 about the German occupation and yes, like you said, it wasn't that bad. (Unless you were a jew.) Russians are a nasty, spiteful people. Better dead than occupied by them. I think the French will feel the same way.

[Navigator]

The French are not going to trade permanent destruction of Paris for, at worst, a few decades of Russian occupation. But I don't think the Russians can get that far conventionally. Maybe to the Rhine and into Flanders, but that's probably the farthest they could get.

Right now the Russians are trying to scare the weaker NATO nations out of even thinking of participating in conventional war by threatening nukes (though the Russians won't do it first, because if they did, THEN the French and British would lob theirs, and, game over for everyone).

[Jubal Early]

The French are not going to trade permanent destruction of Paris for, at worst, a few decades of Russian occupation. But I don't think the Russians can get that far conventionally. Maybe to the Rhine and into Flanders, but that's probably the farthest they could get.

Right now the Russians are trying to scare the weaker NATO nations out of even thinking of participating in conventional war by threatening nukes (though the Russians won't do it first, because if they did, THEN the French and British would lob theirs, and, game over for everyone).

Mass rape would mean the end of the French as a race.

[Guest 21]

The French are not going to trade permanent destruction of Paris for, at worst, a few decades of Russian occupation. But I don't think the Russians can get that far conventionally. Maybe to the Rhine and into Flanders, but that's probably the farthest they could get.

Right now the Russians are trying to scare the weaker NATO nations out of even thinking of participating in conventional war by threatening nukes (though the Russians won't do it first, because if they did, THEN the French and British would lob theirs, and, game over for everyone).

#1 Paris is ALREADY lost. It's a black African and Arab city today. The Communist mayor, the daughter of immigrants, has replaced iron and marble with plastic and cheap chrome. The garbage spills onto every street corner, and it isn't safe to walk around day or night. I used to live in Paris, and the Paris that I saw on my last visit was nothing like the Paris I lived in in the 1990s. Paris is burning already. The French have ALREADY suffered the loss of Paris. They won't endure a rapacious and brutal occupation in order to save a once beautiful city that is now an African garbage dump.

#2 No way in hell will the French allow the Russians to occupy France. No way. The average Frenchman knows that France would not survive. The Russians are pigs.

#3 NATO would respond with extreme military force. The Russian army is only a million men ON PAPER. They cannot march into Europe with 100,000 men. An army needs discipline and qualified officers to lead it. Russia has neither.

#4 NATO is not as hollowed out as you believe. Yes, the Dutch and Belgians would surrender (look at Srebrenica), but the (non-NATO) Swiss would fight, the Italians would fight, and so would the French. The French have an excellent military. The British would definitely fight. The Spanish would also fight.

You underestimate the patriotism and common sense of many in Western Europe. We are not all stupid cowards.

[Guest]

White House press secretary Jen Psaki underscored Putin’s comments about diplomatic talks and said the United States also believes that diplomacy is the “best path and the right path.” She dismissed the idea that either NATO or Ukraine was threatening Russia, noting that NATO is a “defensive alliance, not an aggressive alliance.”

“Facts are a funny thing, and facts make clear that the only aggression that we are seeing at the border of Russia and Ukraine is the military buildup by the Russians and the bellicose rhetoric from the leader of Russia,” Psaki said.

In other words: America will fight.

Fuck you, Russia.