- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:38 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:38 am to Darth_Vader
I personally believe Putin made the decision to do the SMO at the moment he saw that poor haj go flying off the bottom of our C 130.
3
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sure Russia not only started this (really beginning with Georgia but at the latest their interference in the 2010 elections in Ukraine), they hold the largest share of the blame It's like 90/10
Rt and I’m pointing out your post started off like a Hillary Clinton tweet.
And Russia invaded Ukraine before and didn’t disrupt the US economy.
And the two constants in this conflict have been Biden and Putin. And I hate both.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Anyone who has watched this Benny Hill Show of an operation should have major doubts that Russia can execute this plan with precision or accuracy.
Relying on inaccurate Russian missiles to survive a full nuclear exchange is insane. Even if 10% of their strike hit their mark tens of millions will die. Not to mention the effects on the climate in the entire northern hemisphere that would result from the detonation of thousands of thermonuclear warheads across North America, Europe, and Russia.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:45 am to dgnx6
quote:
Rt and I’m pointing out your post started off like a Hillary Clinton tweet.
quote:
Stripping a potential major European country (in the future) of its autonomy isn't a good thing, especially since NATO isn't the international organization Russia actually fears: it's the EU (hence the use of European above).
quote:
And Russia invaded Ukraine before and didn’t disrupt the US economy.
They didn't invade. They relied on a fake civil unrest and special forces to "Save ethnic Russias" and "permit self-determination for Crimea", which is their typical playbook for acquiring new land (again, why this all really started with Georgia). Had they done this in eastern Ukraine, without a full scale invasion, it may have led to very different responses.
quote:
And the two constants in this conflict have been Biden and Putin.
It's just Putin. Obama's foreign policy was not guided by Joe Biden, I can assure you of that. Also, Obama was very non-interventionist in 2014, so how can you impute anything to Biden when he reacted very differently when given control in 2022?
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:47 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Relying on inaccurate Russian missiles to survive a full nuclear exchange is insane.
That's not what I was responding to or discussing. Stay on point.
quote:
Even if 10% of their strike hit their mark tens of millions will die.
No fricking shite, idiot. Nobody is disputing that.
I was disputing your specific claims about targeting our nuclear arsenal. Nobody today outside of Russia thinks they have that capability anymore.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
detonation of thousands of thermonuclear warheads across North America, Europe, and Russia.
I doubt "thousands" would be launched, unless Russia just deployed it's whole arsenal (and I'm glad you included Russia in your list b/c if Russia did try to do this, most would likely detonate within Russia itself)
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:52 am to Darth_Vader
I disagree. I think Trump would have tried to work a deal including NATO neutrality and he probably would have been thrown out of office for it as appeasing Putin.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:55 am to dgnx6
quote:
But glad to see your Twitter talking points are down. We’ve been sending money to Ukraine since the 90s we also installed our own puppet regime and Biden used economic coercion, which violates the Budapest agreement.
Lol. It’s been a while since we were graced with the bullshite puppet regime/ muh 2014 talking point. Speaking of things you just saw on twitter and mindlessly regurgitated.
This post was edited on 10/7/22 at 8:00 am
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:59 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I think Trump would have tried to work a deal including NATO neutrality and he probably would have been thrown out of office for it as appeasing Putin.
I can’t imagine a scenario whereby Trump would have openly assisted another country to resist a Russian land grab.
But this is all useless speculation. Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine when he did and Europe and the US have openly aided Ukraine’s resistance. Putin’s choices are to admit miscalculation and withdraw or keep fighting to the last drop of blood from the poor conscripts.
Ukraine and the rest of the world does not have to submit to the irrational demands of the Russians.
NATO did not attack Russia and is not at war with Russia. All that is happening is that Russia is being told “No,” and is throwing a childish tantrum.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 7:59 am to BrianKellyRespecter
I agree that the weakness and disarray on display during our withdrawal from Afghanistan was a big part of Putins decision to go after Ukraine.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's been since 2004 when a nation straight up invaded another one (US-Iraq War), and it's been much longer than that when an outright invasion for land has taken place (possibly have to go back to the early Cold War, so like 60-70 years)
LOL, so close. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, annexed it, and proclaimed that Kuwait was Iraq's 19th province.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:02 am to GOP_Tiger
Ok so early 90s. Before that, it was rare moving backwards. The Cold War was fought via civil/proxy war more than invasion and that was the theme from the 60s until the USSR disbanded.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:03 am to TBoy
quote:
I can’t imagine a scenario whereby Trump would have openly assisted another country to resist a Russian land grab.
I mean, Obama literally did it in 2014, so it's not out of the question that another leader who didn't want to intervene would follow suit.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were replying to my post about the insanity of launching a preemptive strike against Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Don’t know what gave me that idea. I mean, sure you were literally replying to that post of mine and even took the time to quote this portion of it…
quote:
You’re still not understanding how nuclear football is played. Any move made by one side to take away the ability of the other side to launch a nuclear strike will itself trigger that side to launch a full nuclear strike
quote:
No fricking shite, idiot. Nobody is disputing that. I was disputing your specific claims about targeting our nuclear arsenal. Nobody today outside of Russia thinks they have that capability anymore.
Ah. There it is. The lame insult hurled in uninformed and angry emotional rage. I hate to break it to you, but even today it’s estimated Russia possess somewhere around 4,500 warheads, with 1,400 of those on ICBMs. The instant Russia picks up an incoming “preemptive” strike to take even one of them out, they’re going to launch all 1,400 of them.
I Image we can knock out some of them. But how many? Let’s say we knock out 90% of them. That means we take out 1,260 of their warheads. That leaves 140 incoming warheads. So let’s say only 50% of those hit their target. That’s still 70 nuclear blasts over US cities, each blast dwarfing the bombs we dropped on Japan. Again, tens of millions would die.
And if you’re good with that risk and think it’s no big deal, then you’re the one who’s an idiot.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:11 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
angry emotional rage
Calling you an idiot doesn't require any emotions.
quote:
The instant Russia picks up an incoming “preemptive” strike to take even one of them out, they’re going to launch all 1,400 of them.
No. Body. Here. Is. Promoting. Pre. Emptive. Nuclear. Strikes. On. Russia.
This post was edited on 10/7/22 at 8:12 am
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:13 am to Darth_Vader
quote:why are yall obsessing over this. A preemptive strike on Russian isnt happening. Like at all
The instant Russia picks up an incoming “preemptive” strike to take even one of them out, they’re going to launch all 1,400 of them.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:16 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
why are yall obsessing over this. A preemptive strike on Russian isnt happening. Like at all
Because America has to be the bad guy b/c their side isn't in power.
If anyone issues a first-strike nuke in this conflict, everyone (including Russia) agrees that will be via Russia.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I doubt "thousands" would be launched, unless Russia just deployed it's whole arsenal (and I'm glad you included Russia in your list b/c if Russia did try to do this, most would likely detonate within Russia itself)
You’re dead wrong. It’s been standing SOP in both a Russia and the United States for decades that any evidence of incoming “first strike” would immediately trigger a full launch of the entire nuclear arsenal. The reason for this is
(1) the only way to win a nuclear war is to obliterate your opponent before he can launch his nukes.
(2) the only way to lose a nuclear war is to allow your opponent to take out your nukes before you can launch them.
The nightmare of both sides has always been having their own nukes neutralized before they can be launched. Thus, neither side is willing to do so. And there is only one way to ensure this doesn’t happen. And that’s to launch everything at the first sign of incoming.
Frankly, I’m surprised you of all people were in the dark about this aspect of the whole “M.A.D” situation.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:17 am to TBoy
quote:
I can’t imagine a scenario whereby Trump would have openly assisted another country to resist a Russian land grab.
Who was it that sent weapons to Ukraine and opposed the Nordsream 2? And who was it that sent blankets and initially approved the pipeline?
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump was non-interventionist. Why would Russia fear Trump intervening in Ukraine?
Trump bombed the crap out of a Russian base after Aleppo.
Page 1902 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News