Who does—and doesn’t—support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine

I don't know the need for the snarky tone but it's entirely unnecessary.

1. I have no idea what you mean by "grasp of the obvious".

2. There are far more Russians even alive today who were directly affected by WW 2 than Americans who were directly affected.

About 14.6 million Russian citizens were killed(1) during WW 2.

How many Americans died due to military hostilities?



(1). "How many Soviet citizens died in World War II?"
https://www.rbth.com/history/330625-soviet-citizens-died-world-war-statistics

 

I don't know if the term "conservative" applies in the way American politics views political labels. Is "empire" conservative in the American context? I would say no.

 

OK I don't know if you are just trolling, or you are really so into this war hysteria that igniting a nuclear war seems like a good deal as long as we stick it to Putin.

 

You have no basis to assume that taking a more active role in helping Ukrainians to defeat Russian in Ukraine would "ignite" a nuclear war. I have yet to see anyone justify this level of fear over what Putin might do.

 

The person I was replying to assumed that to be the case and considered a nuclear conflict well within acceptable losses:

"550,000 dead. Three times that many injured brings the total to 2.2 million dead or injured. Assume another million suffering from significant radiation illness and that's 3.2 million.

But NYC has a population of 8.8 million people in the city itself. That leaves 5.6 million New Yorkers to rebuild."

 

What would you consider "acceptable losses". And don't say "any". Give us a hard, hard number.

 

Many people to this day believe in MAD, which was based on each country having >60,000 nukes.
Now the US and Russia carry about 1,500 each.
Ukrainians report that about 1/3 of Russian bombs fail to explode. The U.S. already conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests on its territory during Cold War.
Russo-American war would not result in MAD. Yes, a lot of people would die, but the US would win this war and continue on.
I do not advocate for a nuclear war, or war with Russia, but I think our admin needs to grow a set of balls and defend the very principles they claim they represent.

 

In a war over Ukraine? Any is exactly my answer.

 

Perhaps .. but that don't mean we need start dropping nukes... and you got things backwards with the Left... Left are the new Neocons

 

Western arms convoys to Ukraine are ‘legitimate targets,’ Russia warns, as global risks rise
Published Fri, Mar 11 20227:08 AM ESTUpdated Sat, Mar 12 20229:02 AM EST

...

Speaking to Russia’s Channel One broadcaster earlier, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov issued a warning to the West that could lead to a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

“We warned the United States that pumping Ukraine with weapons from a number of countries orchestrated by them is not just a dangerous move, but an action that turns the corresponding convoys into legitimate targets,” the deputy minister said, according to comments reported by Russia’s state news agency TASS.

Ryabkov said there could be consequences to what he called the West’s “thoughtless transfer” to Kyiv of weapons such as portable anti-aircraft missile systems and anti-tank missile systems, both of which have been supplied to Ukraine by several NATO members including the U.S. and U.K.

... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/ukr...the-west-fears-provoking-war-with-russia.html​

Uh oh! Is it time to wuss out of sending weapons to Ukraine now?

 

Have you heard about a Russian drone falling in EU today? I bet they were checking the positions of the NATO SAM systems.

 

Very strange this Yacht seizing business -- doesn't seem that obscene on the surface to the masses - fact they probably don't notice or take to pause at some of the major cracks .. never mind the minor ones. This is ground-breaking .. never been done before .. least not in living memory.. Some new norms being created .. one's that will be extremely difficult for US to follow. Israel . forget it .. if this is the new bar .. will be siezing Israeli Oligarch stuff in the near future .. China can do it .. Russia .. then just point to precedent

How many votes do you think can get at the UN for such action? at the time when the bad deeds are happening .. the next conflict.

Or .. perhaps there will be no more conflicts perpetrated by the West .. and/or NATO and/or our partners El Saud in the Middle East.

So .. seems kind of shiny on the surface but some rats growing inside ..

 

That is simply false - sometimes we get lucky and area able to track - detect .. sometimes not. But even if we were tracking a Russian Sub .. they can launch and be trying to run away long before we can sink them. ..

 

Have they got enough subs in good working order to be much of a concern? Those things ain't cheap to build, maintain and operate, and Russia has a puny economy and an obviously sub-par military.

 

U.S. attack submarines have standing orders to destroy Russian (and before that Soviet) nuclear missile submarines the moment they detect a launch tube being opened for launch.

Detailed in the book "Blind Man's Bluff".

 

And the killing of a hundred million Russians, doesn't bother you, because they're not human beings?

Also, even if NONE of the missiles explode over the USA, that many nuclear explosions could not help but have drastic consequences for the entire planet, almost certainly bringing on a "nuclear winter."

 

The last I heard in the 1990s, the Russians were only able to afford operating two nuclear missile submarines at sea at one time any more. One in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic. Of course the ones at their bases can launch their missiles from dockside. But these would be easily destroyed preemptively.

 

Nuclear winter is a myth that even its biggest advocate Carl Sagan admitted the evidence did not support prior to his death

And I have no interest in killing 100 million Russians. I fraction of that number should be more than sufficient.

 

sure .. from the 1960's no doubt .. but 1) having orders to do something and 2) having the capability to do it - are two different things.

Chances are they don't know where the sub is .... never mind having an attack sub nearbuy ... never mind being close enough to do anything in time .. and how much time is that Dayton .. you read the book .. how much time to launch a hypersonic .. or SLBM ... tick tick tick

and well .. if this is a for real situation .. and our sub is close enough to theirs to do anything about it .. they would see us .. and kill our sub with a tactical nuclear torpedo .. and proceed. or simply wait until we are out of range

In general ... we have no ability to deter the Russian SLBM threat .. and your a bit out of the loop .. can launch hypersonics from the yaught of an oligarch .. or .. go full meal deal with a container ship ... there is no escape for you mate .. none

 

The U.S. and China have networks of hydro acoustic sensors. Russia doesn’t.

 

They don't need em -- and nor do we cause don't do you any good to go Oh look .. one of our detectors went off .. is a sub in the area .. then Ohhhh .. missiles be firing on the big screen ... Ohhh ... now what .. prior to everything going black

 

Yeah .. its part of their deterrence strategy .. they got the subs. They spend very selectively - notice a total of 1 aircraft carrier .. not even sure that is good to go .. certainly not new. After wall fell .. realized could not match US plane for plane - ship for ship .. so they focused on niche technology .. Missiles is one .. Subs was another .. Can build a whole lot of anti ship missiles at 1 million a pop for the cost of a 15 Billion dollar Aircraft carrier - op costs .. and the rest of the group...

 

With Russia threatening the aid convoys I suspect we might just find out.

 

The physical preparations by a submarine to launch a ballistic missile (the Russians don't have any hypersonic missiles yet) take several minutes. Minutes in which generate a pretty decent amount of noise.

A torpedo launched by a U.S. attack submarine can hit a missile launching submarine within a few minutes. '

Your post is pure unsupported drivel.

 

It's the news media. So the real question is why the Democrat intellectuals are so in favor of war.

It probably has something to do with Putin's Party being further towards the political Right. And Russia is seen as an adversary to Western Europe, which everyone knows is a bastion of Progressive Socialism.

If it were China invading a nearby country, the drumbeat of the news media in favor of war would probably not be there.