US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

"Conventional" war does not exist any more

 

Actually the yield of most deployed nuclear weapons topped out in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Now most nuclear weapons are not remotely as large.

 

Tell that to Iraq.

 

Same thing that stopped Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill from using chemical weapons in World War Two despite all having massive chemical weapons stocks.

 

Iraq has large tank battles? Iraq has engagements where at least 2 branches and often all 3 deploy thousands of men in campaigns lasting weeks and/or months?

By the time things have ever gotten to that point the nukes would have come out and the world would have ended

 

Do you not know what M.A.D stands for?

 

The threat that the other side would use them, yes, but if ever one had then then they all would have straight away.

 

There were plenty of tank battles Iraq. And not many wars last weeks or even months? Two of the major wars Israel fought lasted 20 days or less.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

You want to know why the U.S. adopted MAD? Mainly because the alternative was seen as too expensive.

 

Dude tanks were never how ww3 was going to be fought. If you concentrate troops vs a nuclear power in something like the Fulda Gap, you're going to get nuked.
FFS we made the Davey Crockett for that exact conflict.

Grunts are popping nukes off, and you don't think that's going to lead to a wholesale nuclear exchange? Come off it.

 

error

 

Davy Crocketts were not in service for long for that very reason.

 

And yet we made them for that purpose, and other devices besides.

Don't go away mad now, ya hear?

 

The bottom line is that the U.S. very quickly veered away from the idea of allowing a low ranking soldier the authority of launch a nuclear weapon. And reportedly the Soviets were even more restrictive about who they allowed to have such authority.

And why are you acting so patronizing?

 

The bottom line is that we purpose built numerous nuclear weapons to be used at all levels of a conflict with another nuclear power, and adopted the doctrine that any use of nukes in earnest would end with a wholesale exchange.
You want to say "O well we moved away from that" as evidence that we know what we're doing, but want to point to MAD as evidence we didn't know what we're doing. Its silly.

That's my default setting on an internet forum arguing with someone who takes positions with the sort of logical backing you do.

 

I've studied the topic of nuclear weapons and possible global war scenarios for more than 30 year. I resent any condescension and patronizing on your part.

What you don't realize is that just because weapons are built and a strategy developed still does not mean the decision to use nuclear weapons would be made.

 

The chickenhawks screeching for war are ignorant about US foreign policy for the last 30 years.

"The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which should have led to reassessing U.S. national security policy and defense spending. Democratic presidents have played a major role in this militarization because they are unwilling to challenge the Pentagon and the defense industry.

Bill Clinton was initially responsible for the militarization. He abolished the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and began the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Barack Obama believed that war in Afghanistan was a “good war,” and reappointed Robert Gates as secretary of defense to appease the uniformed military. President Joe Biden even appointed a retired four-star general to the position of secretary of defense, and has given diplomacy a back seat in the twin struggles with Russia and China. The postwar presidents understood the need to divide Moscow and Beijing, but Biden has taken actions that have inspired Russia and China to grow closer."

"The expansion of NATO marked a betrayal of President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III’s commitment in 1990 to not “leapfrog” East Germany if the Soviets removed their 380,000 troops from the East. The continuing flirtation of membership for both Ukraine and Georgia, which started in 2008, has caused Russia anxieties over the changing European balance. Expanding NATO was a gratuitous provocation, which belies U.S. accusations from high-level officials that the crisis over Ukraine is a “manufactured” one by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In January 1990, the West German foreign minister confirmed that there would not be an “expansion of NATO territory to the east” in the wake of the Soviet military withdrawal. In my interviews with Baker and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1994, Baker acknowledged (and Shevardnadze confirmed) that he told the former foreign minister the United States would not “leapfrog” over a reunified Germany to move closer to the borders of the Soviet Union. There are reports that Baker was willing to put this commitment in writing, but that national security adviser Brent Scowcroft convinced the president not to do so."

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine - CounterPunch.org

 

You ignore the obvious: It isn't up to the U.S. to determine if another nation wants to apply for NATO membership. Also, a nations membership in NATO must be approved by ALL the other members.

 

The US supported a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which resulted in this manufactured crisis. Ukraine is a puppet state of the US and is infested with Neo-Nazi. We can be thankful Putin isn't as unhinged as the Neo-Cons in out government and the media of there would WW3 years ago.

 

Don't be ridiculous. The United States has no "puppet states".

 

I did not forget anything.

I did not use those exact words, but the situation would be quite grim. You'd want to stay underground for at least three years. And life would be hard and short after you came back aboveground.

After 20 years you won't have to worry about ruthenium-106 and cerium-144 anymore, but the cesium-137 and strontium-90 will be sticking around for 500 years.

There would also be a number of years with no growing season due to the nuclear winter. But hopefully the worst of that will be over after 3 years underground. The nuclear winter will last up to ten years though.

There will also be hard bombardment of UV from the sun for a number of years due to the total destruction of the ozone layer.

Wrong. It would do no such thing.

Wrong. Everything that I have said is correct.

I am doing no such thing.

 

I don't recall us using any nuclear weapons in Afghanistan.

 

All false.

 

Not at all. I have not forgotten anything. Neither did I use the exact words that were quoted.

If you want to avoid a strong gamma ray bath from all the zirconium-95 and niobium-95, you will want to stay underground for three years.

The ruthenium-106 and cerium-144 will be giving people a gamma ray bath for the first 20 years.

The cesium-137 and strontium-90 will last for 500 years.

Scientists predict that the nuclear winter will last up to ten years, with no growing season at all for a number of years.

The heat of nuclear fireballs combines oxygen and nitrogen into various nitrous oxides (all ozone eaters) and then the rising fireballs carry all those nitrous oxides to the top of the atmosphere where the ozone layer is. No ozone layer means lots of UV exposure.