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

If joining a defensive alliance is provocative, you must be saying that Russia has some colorable claim to the Ukraine. Is that your position or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Which is what I was pointing out to dayton who took 'it would be a bad idea' for 'they won't do it', which is why he got confused.
He seems to think people won't do dumb **** on the national level, though here he is advocating for widespread common use of nuclear fission weapons.

 

No, I was responding to this:

More immediately destructive. They didn't make the land for miles around ****ing radioactive.

And in regards to "fission weapons", the fission triggers of most modern fusion weapons is actually quite small.

 

I meant for any meaningful period of time. We should let them if they try without trying to have a battle royale.

 

Again: Google "what is radioactive fallout" or send us some photographs of you swimming at Bikini Atoll.

Again: MAD means you'll be throwing enough of them around for that "quite small" amount of radiation to **** a lot of places up beyond use for the foreseeable future.

When you can cleanly produce fusion bombs (IE not a fission starter), then you can casually toss nukes around.

 

Normalizing the idea that nukes are an option is suicidal.

 

So the U.S. should just let millions of people in Europe suffer just because we don't want to fight?

Sounds cowardly to me.

 

You do know that if nuclear weapons were used again in wartime, far, far,far, far far more people would die from the immediate effects of the bombs than anything that makes us glow in the dark (metaphor by the way).

 

I didn't say not to fight. I said don't do it with nukes, and don't do it with massive conventional battles. Russia knows they don't have the ability to maintain an occupation of Europe, so they would never try.

 

Right. Nukes are a deterrent and a bogeyman, not so much a viable war option.

I don't like Russia using them as a means to bully other nations as they seem to be doing. I understand why they do it -- their conventional military is puny compared to ours and barely a match for what Europe, the UK and Scandinavia could field -- but it is practically a form of terrorism.

 

Eisenhower disagreed

 

The world is destroyed if a nuke is in the air. I don't see India or Pakistan waiting longer than 2 minutes following the launch of the first, regardless of who launched it, to launch their arsenals at each other. Israel would make the call to do the same to Russia. And so on.

 

India and Pakistan? An interesting idea. I don't know why they would be in such a hurry to strike each other if they saw a launch in Russia.

 

Well now, that was when we alone had them.

 

Tokyo and Dresden all of them, never should have happened. They just killed people and strengthened their resolve to fight on. Dresden et al probably lengthened the war in Germany's case.

And Tokyo didn't kill thousands years, even generations later.
Are all conservatives insane? Why are you defending nuclear war? Are you that slavishly devoted to everything Trump said?

 

If Russia and the US were going at it, it instantly changes the calculus. It would not be advisable for ANYONE to wait to see which side was victorious. The best option becomes throwing in with the side u want to win, and throwing your arsenal into the fray.

For example, from India's standpoint, if Russia wipes out the US ability to influence the world, and this could occur within 3 minutes, then within 3 minutes, Pakistan is going to relieve itself of a major deterrent in their calculations to launch a first strike against India.

This would occur on both sides, and it will probably induce a quick launch.

 

Do you have any idea how many cases of cancer were probably caused by that?

Here, here's a guy you probably liked, (I did)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/06/downwinders-nuclear-fallout-hollywood-john-wayne

 

Again disregarding the massive disruption to supply lines etc that would occur from swathes of land being irradiated for decades.
Cities are high way hubs. Cities are targets. Most areas are not self sufficient, they have specialized and require domestic imports from other regions.
Think.

 

I have no idea what Donald Trump said about the use of nuclear weapons.

And the firebombing of Tokyo killed 87,000 people at the time.

 

Because the end result of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is that the US and Russia (and most of Europe) cease to be the main players on the world stage. A power vacuum ensues and must be filled. The swiftest result in filling that vacuum, is planting that axe you've been grinding in whoever you've been grinding it for but the powers that be have held you back from going for.
Grudges get settled. Opportunistic moves made.

 

John Wayne was also a six pack a day cigarette smoker for years.

 

And cities would be struck by nuclear airbursts. And airbursts cause far, far, far less fall out than surface detonations.

 

Or there would be a very nervous standoff between them.

 

A 'profitable', distracting, civil-rights-trampling war.

 

Maybe. But I think the concern that their enemy may strike first, under the circumstances of other nations already launching, would induce each side to attempt first strike. If India waits, and China and Russia emerge victorious, they are toast anyway. Vice versa for Pakistan.