Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

That is incorrect. In the real world all of my statements have been true.

So if we are agreed that if an invasion of the EU cannot be dislodged conventionally, it will be dislodged by nuclear strikes within the EU, let's get back to those tactical nukes.

NATO is not going to set off large dirty nukes within the EU.

If NATO is forced to set off nukes within the EU, they will be small clean nukes.

 

Yes mate .. in fantasyland .. everything one says is true.

Did someone claim otherwise ?

 

In the real world everything that I have said is true.

Well I think you have now agreed that a Russian invasion of the EU, if it cannot be dislodged conventionally, will be dislodged by setting off nuclear weapons inside the EU.

Last I knew, you were insisting that small clean nukes would not be used to do this.

 

All members of the asylum think everything they say is true ... but, that does not make it so.

The above contradicts "everyting I say is True" - you have these fantasy conversations going on in head - that you are attributing to me.

Never agreed that if Russia invaded .. nukes would be set off inside the EU .. so .. not everything that you say - is true.

 

I am not in an asylum. And everything that I said is true.

When I said:
"The only way for nuclear weapons to eliminate an invasion of a country, is to use them within the country that has been invaded."

You replied:
"No kidding .. say it isn't so"

 

Day pass ? and your claim was proven false in previous post. Think we may have narrowed it down to no understanding what you read.

1) it is not the only way
2) if one is going to use nukes to repel an invasion .. the only way to do this is to use nukes to repel the invasion -- "No Kidding" duh.

What does any of this have to do with your false claim - "You agreed that if Russia invaded .. nukes would be set off inside the EU"

I never said this ..and as such - your claim "Everything I say is True" .. is not True

 

Wrong. Everything that I have said remains true.

So how else do you dislodge an invasion of the EU, if that invasion cannot be dislodged conventionally?

I have not made any false claims.

When you agreed with my statement, that was saying what I said.

It does appear now that you are no longer agreeing with my statement. But let's see if you can come up with some other way of dislodging an invasion that cannot be dislodged conventionally.

 

you don't understand what you are reading - Try again

I never agreed that if Russia invaded .. nukes would be set off inside the EU

so you see not everything you say is true
.

 

I understand what I read.

When I said:
"The only way for nuclear weapons to eliminate an invasion of a country, is to use them within the country that has been invaded."

You replied:
"No kidding .. say it isn't so"

I have made errors before in my life. But everything that I've said in this thread has been true.

 

Clearly you don't undertand what you read.

1 )I never agreed that if Russia invaded .. nukes would be set off inside the EU

When I said:
2)"The only way for nuclear weapons to eliminate an invasion of a country, is to use them within the country that has been invaded."

You replied:
"No kidding .. say it isn't so"

Agreeing that eliminating something with nukes ... requires nukes .. is not agreeing that if Russia invaded .. nukes would be set off inside the EU.

As stated previously .. 1) you don't understand what you read 2) you are wrong .. again

 

So how do you imagine that NATO would dislodge a Russian invasion of the EU if that invasion cannot be dislodged conventionally?

I understand perfectly.

That is incorrect. Everything that I have said in this thread is true.

 

In a world run by people not as eager as some for the apocalypse, "NATO" would rely on deterrence. The other things, like plans to defeat the invasion using "clean" tactical nukes, would be merely "options" advertised in order to augment deterrence -- and not something to actually do in case deterrence has failed (or the party relying on such deterrence has overplayed its hand and done things that have prompted the "invasion").

If deterrence has failed, "NATO" will need to help the country being occupied dislodge the invader through conventional means. That is how its done all the time, even by parties not enjoying anything remotely comparable in terms of the support they can rely on to resist and eventually dislodge an occupying force (without relying on nukes, tactical or otherwise).

Let me put it to you this way so you understand the difference between outlandish rhetoric by irresponsible figures who have been all too wrapped up in play-station like war games, and reality when you have to make the choice even against a non-nuclear power who can nonetheless choke your interests and set them on fire:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-warning-iran-52-assets/index.html
Trump warns Iran if it hits any Americans or American assets 'we have targeted 52 Iranian sites'

a few days later"


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/trump-responds-to-iranian-attacks-on-us-forces.html
Trump responds to Iranian attacks: ‘All is well!’

 

Well, yes.

But notice the last part of my question: "if that invasion cannot be dislodged conventionally?"

Some people suggest that a Russian invasion may not be possible to dislodge using conventional force.

So, if conventional force fails to dislodge a Russian invasion of the EU, what does NATO do then?

 

Send a bigger conventional force. It isn't worth it to use nuclear weapons.

 

If we cannot dislodge their invasion conventionally, then there is no such thing as a bigger conventional force.

It is if the only other option is surrender.

Keep in mind that these are clean nukes with low yields and high accuracy. Using them on Russian invaders will not cause a lot of collateral damage.

 

This is ridiculous, why would Russia invade the EU, it's not an aggressive country. Besides, what would they have to gain; Europe's oil, Europe's gas, Europe's minerals, Europe's people? Ha, who would want them.

Actually, Europe and the world cannot survive without Russia. It controls 33% of the world's resources - and this is why it's always under attack by those who know nothing but attacks.

It's always been the other way around. The West has been attacking Russia in one way or another every 25 years, and today it's no difference, otherwise Nato wouldn't be threatening and provoking Russia, by moving closer and closer to their borders and carrying on war games.

 

Russia's history of attacking other countries says otherwise.

No we haven't. We merely prepare to defend ourselves if Russia attacks us.

The only thing that NATO is threatening to do is to go to war if Russia invades the EU.

 

Oh really, tell us the complete history of all these 'attacks'.

Yeah, with all those sanctions based on bullshit and dozens of bases we've built surrounding Russia.

NATO's original purpose was a counter-balance to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists. NATO has now become an aggressor motivated by politics and money. It has zilch to do with security. Turkey is a NATO member....that's just how dumb it is.

 

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and invaded Ukraine in 2014.

Both invasions are ongoing, and Russia is threatening to expand their invasion deeper into Ukraine.

I don't know if that is a complete history, but it should be enough.

 

Do you support people's right to self-determination? What about Transnistria and Abkhazia? Kosovo? So you think the US invaded Yugoslavia?

 

This is from the Los Angeles Times about the war with Georgia:

In recent days, there has been a remarkable change in Western opinion about the August war between Georgia and Russia over my homeland of South Ossetia. The New York Times, the BBC and Human Rights Watch have reported extensive evidence of U.S.-armed and trained Georgian troops attacking innocent civilians using cluster bombs and other banned weapons. The U.S. State Department, which initially backed Georgia strongly, now concedes that Georgia erred in launching its attack, while British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has condemned the Georgian government for its “reckless” attack. Officials of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have come forward to demolish Georgia’s absurd and self-serving claims that it was fighting a defensive war.
​

As for Crimea, the real annexation was by Ukraine in 1995. It all began in 1991 with a power grab by the Ukrainian parliament, which annexed the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, forcibly joining it to Ukraine despite the results of the January referendum about reestablishing Crimea’s autonomy.

When the Crimean protesters were returning from Kiev in 2014, after having supported their legally elected President against the coup instigated by Washington, their buses were stopped at Korsun and burned. Seven were killed outright by the nationalists and 30 are still unaccounted for. When the rest returned home, Crimea declared its independence that had been taken away forcefully by Kiev in 1995 and asked the Russian troops stationed in Sevastopol to protect them while they held another referendum. They voted to be with Russia as protection from Ukraine.

As for the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics: After the burning and hacking of the pro Russian protesters at the Trade Union Building in Odessa by the nationalists, in which the unofficial death toll is 200 and includes children, the 2 cities held a referendum. They wanted to join Russia, but were asked by Yanukovich who was still the official president not to vote to join Russia, but to ask for special rights within Ukraine.

After the vote, Poroshenko instead of speaking to the two cities began killing them. Of course no mention in the MSM that Poroshenko was killing his own people - something he was doing in other Russian areas of Ukraine as well - such as Mariopol. Instead he was calling the civilian populaton 'terrorists'.

Russian troops never entered Ukraine since it would have been illegal, but Russians on furlough did fight as volunteers for the Donetsk and Lugansk militias. According to the OSCE they would enter Ukraine with their uniform and pick up guns at a depot, and then test them at a shooting range.

When General Breedlove said that Russian troops and tanks were invading Ukraine, the German Intelligence Agents couldn't see anything according to the German Spiegel, and reported him as hallucinating.

Here are some of the videos of Poroshenko's so called terrorists. This is why Vladimir Putin finally admitted that what Ukraine did and is continuing to do is genocide of the Russian populaton - because they are still shooting missiles at civilian areas.

This is the bombing of Lugansk by Poroshenko.


This is the shelling of Makeevka by Poroshenko:

​

 

There are unfortunately too many (way too many) arm-chair, play-station, wannabe generals of rather deranged disposition reared, nourished, and nurtured in the US. While their numbers drop significantly when the next war they want to promote is against a nuclear power (most of them finding those "enemies" whose reach they believe doesn't extend potentially to themselves to be preferable), some among them are deranged enough not to be deterred even by the prospects of a nuclear Armageddon. For the few of that disposition, the higher the stakes, the greater the thrill apparently. Never-mind most of them would wet their pants by a mere loud bang at door disturbing their gruesome fantasies...

 

"collateral damage" isn't the issue.

Crossing the nuclear threshold is the issue.

 

Yes.

As part of Georgia, their self determination comes in the form of a right to vote in Georgian elections.

As part of Serbia, their self determination comes in the form of a right to vote in Serbian elections.

My understanding is that Yugoslavia broke apart.

 

Russian propaganda.

More Russian propaganda.

Those Russians were acting on orders from the Russian government.

Europe got a first hand experience of Russian forces in Ukraine when they shot down that European airliner.

More Russian propaganda.