holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Putin can care less what Trump demands , He knows an attack by NATO means nuclear war . Trump cant do jack squat.
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
Putin can care less what Trump demands , He knows an attack by NATO means nuclear war . Trump cant do jack squat.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If we really believed Putin is going to start a nuclear war over losing some material in Ukraine, then the only answer is to eliminate his entire nuclear arsenal immediately.
We'd lose a few cities, but that is the least damage that's possible in that circumstance.
So, if you really believe Putin is a suicidal madman, then you kill him and his entire arsenal right fucking now.
If you think it's all bluster, then you negotiate.
Since we're negotiating, obviously Trump thinks the nuclear threats are bluffs.
This story may, or may not be accurate
www.thekhybermail.com
If it's accurate it will be worth keeping an eye on.
Ukraine War: British Officers Captured in Russian Special Forces Raid
Ochakov, Ukraine (Agencies) August 2, 2025 — In a dramatic escalation of covert hostilities, Russian special forces reportedly executed a lightning-fast operation in the Ukrainian coastal city of Ochakov, capturing three senior British military personnel allegedly involved in coordinating drone...
www.thekhybermail.com
If it's accurate it will be worth keeping an eye on.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
WHAT? NATO entering the war against Russia makes Putin a mad man?? Its Russian doctrine, its exactly what they would do
A few citys? Russia has around 6000 known nuclear warheads , but lets say We shoot down 5,900, (which we cant do since we have barely any missile defense for the country) that means 100 strikes on one hundred citys Killing the majority of the people in the US is a risk Only a mad man would take . Thats insane . and even if We stopped 100% of them aimed at us , We would lose Rome , Brussels Paris London , Madrid , Milan, Berlin Barcelona, Athens , to name a few, gone! in 1 hour. Europe in ashes . Not to mention all the Russian citys
that doesn't sound like a good option
They thought threatening to invade Ukraine was all bluster too, They thought Russia was far to weak to enter Ukraine , far to weak to take take it if they did , they could break the Russian economy with sanctions and it didnt . Now your saying a nuclear war is winnable , not just winnable, but justified .
If trump thinks its all bluster and is willing to attack Russia on the hopes they dont retaliate and launch Nuclear weapons at the US , He should be immediately removed from office .
In what Universe would starting a nuclear war is in the best interests of the american people? Its fucking madness
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Russia has about 4300 warheads, but some of those are tactical and not strategic, and aren’t suitable for the sort of strike we are discussing.
And even the warheads that *are* a strategic type, they do not have delivery mechanisms for all of them.
Most are sitting stockpiled, not mounted in a missile.
Russian nuclear weapons, 2025 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Russian nuclear weapons, 2025
To get to your 6000 figure, you gave to add in a bunch of expired warheads that are sitting around waiting to be dismantled, and then generously round up. Nuclear warheads have a shelf life. If they don't get rebuilt on a regular basis they simply do not work.
The actual number of warheads that they have in what they believe is a deployable condition is much smaller. Less than 900 on land and maybe 600 on subs.
Your reliance on the "6000 warheads" number shows how ill informed you are about the topic.
As for whether it makes sense to attack or not, it ultimately *does* just boil down to whether you believe they will use them or not.
If you think they will use them for anything short of an existential crisis, then you absolutely should nuke them right now, today. It is the best way to minimize the damage. Anything else just means you are giving them the first strike when it inevitably happens.
Because maybe you say "sacrificing Ukraine is worth it to avoid a nuclear war". But, if you're going to say that, then it's inevitable that Putin will, within a few years, decide Ukraine isn't enough and he wants something else. That's been proven over and over as he has gobbled up his neighbors one by one over the last couple decades.
Sooner or later he'll decide he wants something you aren't willing to sacrifice, and it will be all the worse when it happens.
It's the lead up to WWII all over again. Just replace "Sudetenland" with "Chechnya".
Since the end of the cold war Russia has invaded and annexed Chechyna, Georgia, Crimea, and now Eastern Ukraine. Why on earth do you think they will stop of their own volition ?
How far do you let them get before you stop appeasing them due to their nuclear blackmail ?
If they want east Germany back, should we let them have that too, if they threaten nukes ?
This little war is nearly over, I said at the start of the thread that Russia would win...
I was correct.
I was correct.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
What does "winning" look like for Russia in your estimation?
Ukraine giving up/
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thats funny, NATO wanted to enter Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine , what a coincidence. You just made Russias point about encroahment on her borders .
As far as numbers go, 6000 was a ball park number , But just for shits and giggles give me a number of nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US include submarines and air craft launched, We'll work with that Ok?
what do ya think about 6 or 7 ? maybe 10? and were going to stop them with the same systems protecting kiev ,Ukraine?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No it was off the top of my head , I didnt research the actual number, But i knew it was in the ball bark give or take . Point being , Its a lot.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thats hogwash. Putin wasnt even ready for war in 22. He was begging for a solution to the issue before the war started .He dam well knows he cant take on NATO, it would end up going nuclear. He invaded Ukraine with roughly 150 - 250K troops in 22 . Ukraine had 700k under arms , He was in no way shape or form ready for a full blown war against NATO , hell, even Ukraine . He went to war with the army he had.
He was gambling on a decapitation strategy, He was hoping the Ukraine army would join ranks with them, and the war would be over
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
LOL appeasing them, thats rich,
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So, why the fuck did he invade ?
He's ridiculously outclassed by NATO, who are right on his doorstep.
Nothing he could have hoped to do in Ukraine could have changed that.
None of that rhetoric passes even a basic sanity check.
No, the only reasonable explanation for the invasion was a resource grab. He'd gotten away with it 3x so far, and Biden all but gave him permission to go again.
And if he would start a nuclear war over some territory he's kinda sorta held for a couple years at most, then he needs to go, now, regardless of the cost. Because no matter how high the cost is, it'll only go up.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
What does that mean, giving up what ?
You think Russia is going to annex all of Ukraine ?
The territory they occupy now ? More ? Less ?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Well, what else do you call letting them invade and conquer 3 1/2 neighboring countries.
Quitting the fight due to not being good enough to continue.
Nope.
Don't know, don't care.
The Ukraine will quit, just as I said they would.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
NATO wanted to court those countries to *join*.
You know what the difference is, right ?
It's like the difference between sex and rape. It all comes down to consent.
You are saying "NATO was trying to wine and dine the girl Putin had had his eye on, so he clubbed her over the head and dragged her back and chained her up in his basement". As if that's some sort of justification for his actions.
So, I did give you some numbers. 900 land based and 600 submarine based.
And that illustrates precisely *why* you take him out first if you think there's any chance he might launch.
Currently, there is no effective defense against ICBMs or SLBMs. We can shoot down theater ballistic missiles, if we are defending the specific area they are targeted at. They travel in the neighborhood of Mach 10.
But ICBMs and SLBMs travel much faster. Mach 25 or more. We had a terminal defense system for them in the 1970s, but we negotiated that away and haven't rebuilt.
So, if Russia decides some line has been crossed when we try to stop him from invading Poland or whatever, it's game over in the west.
I don't know what the failure rate on his missiles would be, could be as high as 90%, might be as low as 10%. But either way, that's enough to destroy every strategic military target and major city in all of the west.
The US reply would of course utterly end Russia.
Now, on the other hand if we think he is about to launch, and we decide to strike first, then his subs are instantly gone. The attack subs we have following them would sink them before any Russian knew what happened.
There's only maybe one or 2 russian ballistic missile subs at sea at a time.
That's not super time critical. Nobody outside the US sub would know it happened probably for days.
Once the US subs reported back that their mission was accomplished, then a strike can be conducted against the ICBMs. The precise location of all of them is known for sure.
They have those 900 land based warheads loaded on something like 300 missiles.
I think we could take out the vast majority of them in a conventional first strike with stealth aircraft before a launch order could be given.
That combined with the failure rate associated with their poor maintenance we could be looking at only a few dozen warheads headed to the west.
And that's *without* engaging nuclear weapons.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
By that logic you could say Russia will lose because they will quit too.
Unless you set some specific victory condition, "who won" is just a semantic argument.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Problem is you. You dont want to look at situation from the enemys eyes. thats why you dont understand why they would invade.
His prediciment was to either allow NATO on his door step which was unacceptable terms to them. Or go to war in Ukraine before they joined NATO and take your chances. He threw the dice and almost came up short. This was never about a land grab , the Russians have more land then they need , they could not afford to lose the naval base in the Crimea.
You bought the bullshit story of how a weakened Russia decided to invade Ukraine as a land grab despite the fact they said they would do so for 30 years, and When Ukraine breeched thier nuetrality agreement , Your shocked and appalled that Russia would do just what they said they do for 30 years and somehow its a land grab with a weakened army.
I got a bridge over the Dniper river to sell ya.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Ukraine would have called quits anytime in the last 3 years if Russia allowed them to. This whole thing is entirely Russia's idea.
You can't unilaterally end a war without unconditional surrender.
That's not happening.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Yes, they threatened to execute the land grab for 30 years, then finally did it.
That doesn't make it any less of a land grab.
I understand *why* they wanted Ukraine. The land they have invaded is actually very valuable, unlike most of Russia that's just a frozen shithole.
Eventually NATO is going to have to deal with Russian expansionism. They don't have a choice. The only question is sooner or later.
Will you take that same attitude when Russia gets curb stomped ?
You go on and on about how "NATO on their door step was unacceptable to Russia", but you refuse to see the other side that "Russia invading neighbor after neighbor is unacceptable to NATO".
*Germany* is re-arming because of this. If Putin's goal was to contain NATO, this was the most spectacular failure possible.
He was worried about NATO in Donbass ? He might end up with NATO in Moscow if he doesn't stop fucking around.
The smart play would have just been to do nothing. Let Ukraine join, and everyone else who wanted to and then let NATO rot for a few decades. It would have become as irrelevant as the UN.
But, no, he decided it was time to remind all of Europe why they need NATO.
Remember Trump's first term when he was demanding Europe spend 2% of gdp on NATO because of the Russians, and they all laughed in his face ? Well, now they're spending 5%.
Finland joined NATO because of this.
So if "NATO getting closer and stronger" was the reason, this is one of the most spectacular failures of leadership in history. Could go down next to Mao's "4 pests" campaign.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
This isnt the 19th century. With enough fuck around Russia could cease to exist in short order.
A single Ohio class SSBN could reduce the entire population of Russia to less than a million people in about 20 minutes.
Trump ordered 2 of them to head up there last week.
We have 18 of them currently in service.
Here's the thing...
If we didn't already have at least 2 Ohio class ssbns within launch range of Russia, the Navy has not performed their duties. We should probably have a minimum of 2-3 on patrol at all times within range of Russia. Essentially we're talking if we have our boomers anywhere in the northern hemisphere they are likely in range of striking Russia. So this whole Trump tweet is actually concerning to me and not for the obvious reason but the subtle reason. Either we didn't actually have a genuine deterrent out to sea on patrol, they weren't within striking range of Russia (which is essentially the same as not being out on patrol) both options mean the navy is not fulfill their role in the strategic deterence triad, or that they've been so gutted over the previous 8 years or Biden wokeism. Perhaps Trump just didn't know we have boomers on alert 24/7/365 and that's also concerning.
Or, we already have our standard deterence patrols in place And we essentially just doubled them to ~5 boomers in position. That's concerning because Russia may very well perceive this as a genuine threat of the US intending on launching an unprovoked preemptive first strike because it deviates so far from the baseline.
All these theories are concerning but for very different reasons.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No you dont seem to get it, It wasnt about the valuable land , thats all bonus for them . not the main objective . Ukraine took the risk to join NATO despite the fact That would mean war with Russia , they threw the dice , they knew the risks , Maybe they felt Russia was in no position to invade which wasnt far off the mark, Maybe they figured, with the well equipped NATO trained military they could beat them back to previous borders, maybe they were told NATO would come in on thier behalf and didnt. Maybe they figured Putin would be forced to back down altogether.
In any case, they understand the mistake now .
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
excerpt: How the West Brought War to Ukraine
For almost 200 years, starting with the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near U.S. territory knows it is crossing a red line. U.S. policy thus embodies a conviction that where a potential opponent places its forces is crucially important. In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered reason for war. Yet when it comes to Russia, the United States and its NATO allies have acted for decades in disregard of this same principle. They have progressively advanced the placement of their military forces toward Russia, even to its borders. They have done this with inadequate attention to, and sometimes blithe disregard for, how Russian leaders might perceive this advance. Had Russia taken equivalent actions with respect to U.S. territory — say, placing its military forces in Canada or Mexico — Washington would have gone to war and justified that war as a defensive response to the military encroachment of a foreign power. When viewed through this lens, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not as the unbridled expansionism of a malevolent Russian leader but as a violent and destructive reaction to misguided Western policies: an attempt to reestablish a zone around Russia’s western border that is
For almost 200 years, starting with the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near U.S. territory knows it is crossing a red line. U.S. policy thus embodies a conviction that where a potential opponent places its forces is crucially important. In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered reason for war. Yet when it comes to Russia, the United States and its NATO allies have acted for decades in disregard of this same principle. They have progressively advanced the placement of their military forces toward Russia, even to its borders. They have done this with inadequate attention to, and sometimes blithe disregard for, how Russian leaders might perceive this advance. Had Russia taken equivalent actions with respect to U.S. territory — say, placing its military forces in Canada or Mexico — Washington would have gone to war and justified that war as a defensive response to the military encroachment of a foreign power. When viewed through this lens, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not as the unbridled expansionism of a malevolent Russian leader but as a violent and destructive reaction to misguided Western policies: an attempt to reestablish a zone around Russia’s western border that is
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
free of offensive threats from the United States and its allies. Having misunderstood why Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is now basing existential decisions on false premises. In doing so, it is deepening the crisis and may be sleepwalking toward nuclear war. This argument, which I now present in detail, is based on the analyses of a number of scholars, government officials, and military observers, all of whom I introduce and quote from in the course of the presentation. These include John Mearsheimer, Stephen F. Cohen, Richard Sakwa, Gilbert Doctorow, George F. Kennan, Chas Freeman, Douglas Macgregor, and Brennan Deveraux.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Within months after Russia invaded Ukraine, the explanation offered for America’s involvement changed. What had been pitched as a limited, humanitarian effort to help Ukraine defend itself morphed to include an additional aim: to degrade Russia’s capacity to fight another war in the future. In fact, this strategic objective may have been in place from the start. In March, 2022 —just weeks after the start of the war and more than a month before the new U.S. policy was announced —Chas Freeman, previously Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, observed, Everything we are doing, rather than accelerating an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting, assisting the Ukrainian resistance —which is a noble cause, I suppose, but …will result in a lot of dead Ukrainians as well as dead Russians.¹ Freeman’s observation pointed to an uncomfortable truth: America’s two war aims are not really compatible with each other. Whereas a humanitarian effort would seek to limit the destruction and end the war quickly, the strategic goal of weakening Russia requires a prolonged war with maximum destruction, one that bleeds Russia dry of men and machine