Current Events > In the event of a nuclear strike, what should Russia's punishment be?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkBuster22904 posted...

And retaliation without nukes is impossible.

Theres zero justification for this. Nukes arent going to accomplish anything that non-nukes wouldnt. The difference will be the hastened end of civilization.

The only two options are doing nothing, or nuclear holocaust.

Thats false, but if it were true, doing nothing would be preferable to the outright termination of human life. I cant believe this needs to be said. All measures we take are implicitly to preserve continued organized human existence. That is always the goal. Everyone dies is never a valid option.

AloneIBreak posted...

This is really simplistic thinking. Its one thing to nuke Ukraine, which has no stockpile of its own and cant fire back, but its another entirely to nuke the US, which has nuclear capabilities worldwide.

You're looking at this from the perspective that Putin is a rational, empathetic individual who cares about the greater population.

He's not. He's a megalomaniancal dictator who's completely wrapped up in his vision of a perfect, all powerful Russia. It's the whole point of hos war in Ukraine. Its evident in all of his propagandizing. He's proven that he's more than willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people, throwing them into the meat grinder (through conscription if necessary) to feed his imperialistic passion project. He throws about threats to end the world and everyone in it like they're nothing at all. And yes, his vision of a perfect Russia requires him as the great leader at the center of it all.

It doesn't matter if attacking another nuclear power is somehow "different." If it gets to the point where he feels threatened by a power that could actually take him down, he'll end the world just so nobody else can have it. Because to him, a russia without him isnt worth existing. He's a genocidal version of the "taking my ball and going home" kid.

Umbreon posted...

But what would you do?

You're so busy trying to insult me, what would you fucking do in this scenario? If you have a better solution, I would genuinely like to hear it.

I gave you a simple better option. You just don't like it because whether it's your ego, self righteousness, or complete lack of understanding. It appears it's all of the above.

Any option that doesn't support nuking Russia.

Your option demands billions dead.

DEFCON 2 and immediate calls from every nation on earth to immediately surrender and agree to occupation or face immediate destruction.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

It doesn't matter if attacking another nuclear power is somehow "different."

Yes, it actually does matter. As the consequences are inherently different. Regardless of one's personal feelings about a non nuclear country getting hit.

t5yvxc posted...

I gave you a simple better option

Did you? I didn't see you list an alternative option. All I've seen is insults.

t5yvxc posted...

You just don't like it because whether it's your ego, self righteousness, or complete lack of understanding. It appears it's all of the above.

Like here. Again, I do not want the world to end. I get no satisfaction from nuclear war and the countless lives lost in it.

If Putin goes full lunatic and decided to nuke Ukraine, what do you think the response should be?

DarkBuster22904 posted...

He's not. He's a megalomaniancal dictator who's completely wrapped up in his vision of a perfect, all powerful Russia. It's the whole point of hos war in Ukraine. Its evident in all of his propagandizing. He's proven that he's more than willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people, throwing them into the meat grinder (through conscription if necessary) to feed his imperialistic passion project. He throws about threats to end the world and everyone in it like they're nothing at all. And yes, his vision of a perfect Russia requires him as the great leader at the center of it all.

It doesn't matter if attacking another nuclear power is somehow "different."

Whatever else may be said about him, hes completely capable of understanding the difference between nuking humble Ukraine versus the already hostile, nuke-ready United States.

If it gets to the point where he feels threatened by a power that could actually take him down, he'll end the world just so nobody else can have it. Because to him, a russia without him isnt worth existing. He's a genocidal version of the "taking my ball and going home" kid.

Hes already felt that way for some time, hence invading Ukraine. Regardless, you suggest we should do exactly that by nuking him. By your own logic, doing what you want is going to guarantee he launches more nuclear weapons after whatever he attacks Ukraine with. And thats what you want to do. Insane.

AloneIBreak posted...

Whatever else may be said about him, hes completely capable of understanding the difference between nuking humble Ukraine versus the already hostile, nuke-ready United States.

Hes already felt that way for some time, hence invading Ukraine. Regardless, you suggest we should do exactly that by nuking him. By your own logic, doing what you want is going to guarantee he launches more nuclear weapons after whatever he attacks Ukraine with. And thats what you want to do. Insane.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't WANT to do anything.

I'm saying that it's pointless. Any response beyond shrugging our shoulders and letting Ukraine burn would prompt a nuclear response from Putin. Period. He's not just going to sit there while an invading army or missile strikes begin closing on the Kremlin. Not in a million years.

Amd even if we DID decide to do nothing, our of a sense of duty to the greater good of survival, that would send a clear and powerful message that it's A-OK to nuke non-nuclear powers, regardless of alliances, as there will be no consequences. Which would be one hell of a precedent to set. Emphasis on Hell. Expect Taiwan to be gone within a week.

Umbreon posted...

Like here. Again, I do not want the world to end. I get no satisfaction from nuclear war and the countless lives lost in it.

If Putin goes full lunatic and decided to nuke Ukraine, what do you think the response should be?

Here, I'll bold it for you this time.

NOT NUKE RUSSIA. I'mnot in the business of dying because Ukraine was nuked, as tragic as that would be. I don't wish for an even larger tragedy.

Firing a nuke on Ukraine does not mean he will fire on NATO. Despite your feelings for Ukraine, it is not a nuclear power nor does Ukraine have a strong alliance with a nuclear world power. NATO is literally going out of its way to remain in a proxy level of involvement. The insinuating of Putin bombing literally anyone, more specifically other nuclear powers with strong nuclear allies is not found in logic.

You were answered the first time, your feelings, ego and lack of understanding doesn't like the answer.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't WANT to do anything.

I'm saying that it's pointless. Any response beyond shrugging our shoulders and letting Ukraine burn would prompt a nuclear response from Putin. Period. He's not just going to sit there while an invading army or missile strikes begin closing on the Kremlin. Not in a million years.

Which is why I gave the option of ceasing all economic and diplomatic activity.

It "Lets Ukraine burn" while also not committing us to tripping past the point of no return.

It's a very shallow chance but one singular nuclear strike doesn't have to be the end of the human race. Also a tactical nuclear strike wouldn't spell doom for all of Ukraine.

t5yvxc posted...

Here, I'll bold it for you this time.

NOT NUKE RUSSIA.

Firing a nuke on Ukraine does not mean he will fire on NATO. Despite your feelings for Ukraine, it is not a nuclear power nor does Ukraine have a strong alliance with a nuclear world power. So the insinuating of him bombing literally anyone is not found on logic.

You were answered the first time, your feelings, ego and lack of understanding doesn't like the answer.

You fucking realize that the asshole will not stop nuking countries, right? Or are you simply a Russian troll? What, you think he'll come out and pinky promise not to do it again? If we send in troops he'll use nukes, if we obliterate their army from the air he'll use nukes. Once he uses the first one, if he hasn't been shown that the world would respond in kind, he will continue to nuke any country he wants. "Well as long as it isn't NATO! Derpaderp!" You would be showing that NATO has no fucking teeth, and that you would simply say "Well it's just Poland." next time.

Stalinrules posted...

You f***ing realize that the a****** will not stop nuking countries, right? .........Once he uses the first one, if he hasn't been shown that the world would respond in kind, he will continue to nuke any country he wants

Again no basis in reality or the basic understanding where Ukraine and NATO are not the same. Bombing one in reality doesn't hold the same level of risk than it does NATO.

Stalinrules posted...

and that you would simply say "Well it's just Poland." next time.

Pulled out your ass.

t5yvxc posted...

NOT NUKE RUSSIA. I'mnot in the business of dying because Ukraine was nuked, as tragic as that would be. I don't wish for an even larger tragedy.

So you're saying do nothing? Because not nuking Russia has to be followed up by another action. You haven't put any action on the table, just an inaction.

Umbreon posted...

So you're saying do nothing? Because not nuking Russia has to be followed up by another action. You haven't put any action on the table, just an inaction.

No no, he has put forth an action. He wants us all to get on our hands and knees and blow Putin.

Stalinrules posted...

No no, he has put forth an action. He wants us all to get on our hands and knees and blow Putin.

Oh, so appeasement then? I guess roughly 44 million (Ukraine) counts as "acceptable losses" to him.

Unless this theory is mistaken and he'd like to offer a correction.

Umbreon posted...

Oh, so appeasement then? I guess roughly 44 million (Ukraine) counts as "acceptable losses" to him.

Unless this theory is mistaken and he'd like to offer a correction.

More than that, you'll have to count the population of every non NATO country that Russia wants to conquer. And then the smaller NATO countries, because so what, right?

Umbreon posted...

Oh, so appeasement then? I guess roughly 44 million (Ukraine) counts as "acceptable losses" to him.

Unless this theory is mistaken and he'd like to offer a correction.

Youre right. 44 million? Fuck that, lets launch ours too and make that number way bigger. Thats the smart thing to do!

AloneIBreak posted...

Youre right. 44 million? Fuck that, lets launch ours too and make that number way bigger. Thats the smart thing to do!

Nukes or no nukes, there's no option that doesn't result in more deaths. Do you understand this? Even if no one fires a nuke at Russia, it won't end at just Ukraine being nuked.

Umbreon posted...

Nukes or no nukes, there's no option that doesn't result in more deaths. Do you understand this? Even if no one fires a nuke at Russia, it won't end at just Ukraine being nuked.

More deaths are guaranteed, no doubt, but if we have any humanity at all, our goal will be to minimize them. Nuclear strikes achieve exactly the opposite.

AloneIBreak posted...

More deaths are guaranteed, no doubt, but if we have any humanity at all, our goal will be to minimize them. Nuclear strikes achieve exactly the opposite.

Sure.

What's your plan on minimizing them? How do you stop Russia?

The punishment would be sanctions?

AloneIBreak posted...

Youre right. 44 million? Fuck that, lets launch ours too and make that number way bigger. Thats the smart thing to do!

So you want to blame the response, but not the action that led to that response. Putin is like an idiot that wears a crotchless suit made of bacon whilst having his genitals smothered in peanut butter and jumps into a Polar Bear enclosure to take a selfie. The Polar Bear and Putin will end up dead, but you choose to blame the Polar Bear.

thx1138 posted...

The punishment would be sanctions?

Because they're working so well right now, eh? Russia will still get resources from their allies, and Putin does not give a flying fuck about starving his populace, especially when said populace consists of cowards that won't try and fight him.

Don't we have a ton of anti-nuclear defense systems in place?

AceAttorneyist posted...

Don't we have a ton of anti-nuclear defense systems in place?

That shit really isn't that reliable.

Our primary target should be Putin. Once we kill him then the war will end. We should not nuke millions of people pointlessly. Just find Putin and kill anyone that gets in our way.

Umbreon posted...

Sure.

What's your plan on minimizing them? How do you stop Russia?

Not retaliate with nukes.

You're asking a ridiculous question over and over because you don't like the answer. You WANT nuclear retaliation so you have convinced yourself that the only way to retaliate is to fire more nukes.

44 million is less than a billion+.

Umbreon posted...

Sure.

What's your plan on minimizing them? How do you stop Russia?

The slow method.

Cease all activity with them.

Bleed them dry economically. Let the domestic unrest at home consume them.

Putin can, in theory, use a nuke to put everything on pause internationally.

If he gets his one and he sees it doesn't draw what he wants, be it "victory" or nuclear armageddon and all it resulted in was becoming a pariah at home and abroad, what does that leave him with? Threatening nukes if people refuse to do business with him?

Once a nuke is used, all missile defense systems will monitor Russia nigh exclusively and many anti-missle defense systems will be deployed within Ukraine and every European nation. Which nulls the teeth of Putins nukes. Any movement that even begins to match the signatures of ICBMs will be immediately met with interceptors.

There are alternatives to nuclear retaliation. But they're less exciting and require a bit of finesse.

And all of this is predicated on the knowledge of what we have publicly available. Who knows what kind of real defense systems the world has.

NatsuSama posted...

Not retaliate with nukes.

You're asking a ridiculous question over and over because you don't like the answer. You WANT nuclear retaliation so you have convinced yourself that the only way to retaliate is to fire more nukes.

44 million is less than a billion+.

Any form of retaliation on our part will be met with nukes. The fucker has stated that repeatedly, and sanctions don't work when they get whatever they need from their allies.

Stalinrules posted...

So you want to blame the response, but not the action that led to that response.

No, both are bad but its stupid to make a bad situation worse.

Putin is like an idiot that wears a crotchless suit made of bacon whilst having his genitals smothered in peanut butter and jumps into a Polar Bear enclosure to take a selfie. The Polar Bear and Putin will end up dead, but you choose to blame the Polar Bear.

Nothing youve posted has justified a response but this might be your worst yet. If the United States government has the impulse control of a hungry polar bear surrounded by peanut butter and bacon rather than that of a rational actor, we certainly dont have any business wielding nuclear weapons which wed be incapable of using responsibly.

NatsuSama posted...

Not retaliate with nukes.

This isn't an answer.

What is your response?

Not nuking Russia has to be followed up with some action. I don't fucking WANT a nuclear war, don't put words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with what I want. What I want is for Putin to be assassinated before this horrible scenario can play out.

Stalinrules posted...

Any form of retaliation on our part will be met with nukes. The fucker has stated that repeatedly, and sanctions don't work when they get whatever they need from their allies.

They won't have any allies if they use a nuke.

Think China wants nuclear Russia as an ally if it means they lose the US as a trade partner? That'd spell economic doom for China before next Friday.

MachineJaipur posted...

The slow method.

Cease all activity with them.

Bleed them dry economically. Let the domestic unrest at home consume them.

Putin can, in theory, use a nuke to put everything on pause internationally.

If he gets his one and he sees it doesn't draw what he wants, be it "victory" or nuclear armageddon and all it resulted in was becoming a pariah at home and abroad, what does that leave him with? Threatening nukes if people refuse to do business with him?

Once a nuke is used, all missile defense systems will monitor Russia nigh exclusively and many anti-missle defense systems will be deployed within Ukraine and every European nation. Which nulls the teeth of Putins nukes. Any movement that even begins to match the signatures of ICBMs will be immediately met with interceptors.

There are alternatives to nuclear retaliation. But they're less exciting and require a bit of finesse.

And all of this is predicated on the knowledge of what we have publicly available. Who knows what kind of real defense systems the world has.

Thank you for having an actual goddamn answer, rather than accusing someone of wanting a nuclear war.

AloneIBreak posted...

No, both are bad but its stupid to make a bad situation worse.

Nothing youve posted has justified a response but this might be your worst yet. If the United States government has the impulse control of a hungry polar bear surrounded by peanut butter and bacon rather than that of a rational actor, we certainly dont have any business wielding nuclear weapons which wed be incapable of using responsibly.

And Putin is a rational actor? And like I said, you would blame the bear, not the fucking lunatic that went and had an actual suit made of bacon, rubbed his balls down in peanut butter, and tried to take a selfie with a polar bear. The bear would be the rational one, it's a fucking bear, the irrational one is the fucking idiot that goes out of his way to endanger himself and expects to get away with his stupid phone pic prize.

Stalinrules posted...

Any form of retaliation on our part will be met with nukes.

False. You just want the specific retaliation of NATO nuking Russia.

Umbreon posted...

Not nuking Russia has to be followed up with some action. I don't f***ing WANT a nuclear war, don't put words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with what I want. What I want is for Putin to be assassinated before this horrible scenario can play out.

If your response is NATO nukes Russia if they nuke Ukraine, yes you do.

MachineJaipur posted...

They won't have any allies if they use a nuke.

Think China wants nuclear Russia as an ally if it means they lose the US as a trade partner? That'd spell economic doom for China before next Friday.

And they'd be in no danger of that happening, because losing China as a trade partner would doom the US before next Thursday.

China has such a chokehold on global markets that it can comfortably play both sides with no consequence. The whole reason they haven't done anything to Russia is because they want to see how it plays out so they can figure out how to do the same to Taiwan. If Russia nukes its way to victory with no military reprisals, it'll have its answer.

The US ceasing trade with China is much more a fantasy than Odin, Ra, Mr. T and Goku showing up at your front door at 3:30 am to go get coke and hookers.

I'm only going to tell you once more.

I do not want a nuclear war. Nor do I get any pleasure from being forced into a nuclear response.

Just because I see it as an inevitably, doesn't mean I like it.

NatsuSama posted...

False. You just want the specific retaliation of NATO nuking Russia.

If your response is NATO nukes Russia if they nuke Ukraine, yes you do.

Putin has repeatedly stated that it would be. If he actually utilized one in Ukraine, it would simply bolster his words.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

China has such a chokehold on global markets that it can comfortably play both sides with no consequence. The whole reason they haven't done anything to Russia is because they want to see how it plays out so they can figure out how to do the same to Taiwan. If Russia nukes its way to victory with no military reprisals, it'll have its answer.

This is why I think China doesn't step in if another nation decides to go to war with Russia in this scenario.

They don't want to die for Putin, they'll throw Russia under the bus if they see a way to get away with it.

"Yeah I don't know what those guys were thinking. Imagine using nukes. So about those trade deals..."

Course this assumes there's a world left to make trades with, which isn't a guarantee when nukes are on the table...

DarkBuster22904 posted...

And they'd be in no danger of that happening, because losing China as a trade partner would doom the US before next Thursday.

China has such a chokehold on global markets that it can comfortably play both sides with no consequence. The whole reason they haven't done anything to Russia is because they want to see how it plays out so they can figure out how to do the same to Taiwan. If Russia nukes its way to victory with no military reprisals, it'll have its answer.

China would never nuke Taiwan because the only vested interest China has in Taiwan, besides domestic platitudes towards it historically being a part of China, is the semiconductor factories/farms on Taiwan. If you nuke Taiwan, you destroy the factories and boom, you've set your goal back for many years, if not decades.

And if China somehow didn't destroy the factories with nukes, Taiwan would sabotage the factories if China did nuke the island.

I think you underestimate the kinds of line in the sand that would be drawn post-nuke use. China would abandon Russia in a heartbeat over it. Russia is nothing to China compared to the rest of the global market. The only theoretical use Russia is to China is as a geopolitical tool. As soon as that tool becomes too hot to fuck with, they'll drop it. Using a nuke makes them too hot to fuck with.

Umbreon posted...

This is why I think China doesn't step in if another nation decides to go to war with Russia in this scenario.

They don't want to die for Putin, they'll throw Russia under the bus if they see a way to get away with it.

"Yeah I don't know what those guys were thinking. Imagine using nukes. So about those trade deals..."

Course this assumes there's a world left to make trades with, which isn't a guarantee when nukes are on the table...

China would simply sit back and wait until we killed each other, then they could takeover whatever is left.

MachineJaipur posted...

China would never nuke Taiwan because the only vested interest China has in Taiwan, besides domestic platitudes towards it historically being a part of China, is the semiconductor factories/farms on Taiwan. If you nuke Taiwan, you destroy the factories and boom, you've set your goal back for many years, if not decades.

And if China somehow didn't destroy the factories with nukes, Taiwan would sabotage the factories if China did nuke the island.

I think you underestimate the kinds of line in the sand that would be drawn post-nuke use. China would abandon Russia in a heartbeat over it. Russia is nothing to China compared to the rest of the global market. The only theoretical use Russia is to China is as a geopolitical tool. As soon as that tool becomes too hot to fuck with, they'll drop it. Using a nuke makes them too hot to fuck with.

Not if they use tactical nukes.

MachineJaipur posted...

China would never nuke Taiwan because the only vested interest China has in Taiwan, besides domestic platitudes towards it historically being a part of China, is the semiconductor factories/farms on Taiwan. If you nuke Taiwan, you destroy the factories and boom, you've set your goal back for many years, if not decades.

And if China somehow didn't destroy the factories with nukes, Taiwan would sabotage the factories if China did nuke the island.

I think you underestimate the kinds of line in the sand that would be drawn post-nuke use. China would abandon Russia in a heartbeat over it. Russia is nothing to China compared to the rest of the global market. The only theoretical use Russia is to China is as a geopolitical tool. As soon as that tool becomes too hot to fuck with, they'll drop it. Using a nuke makes them too hot to fuck with.

Small nukes exist.

Umbreon posted...

Just because I see it as an inevitably, doesn't mean I like it.

What you claim is inevitable in reality is nothing more than what you are demanding in retaliation.

NATO does not HAVE to retaliate with nukes, you WANT them to. You have confused the response you want with what can be done. In fact you have made it crystal clear the only acceptable response to you would be to retaliate with nukes.

Stalinrules posted...

Putin has repeatedly stated that it would be. If he actually utilized one in Ukraine, it would simply bolster his words.

Again does not mean any retaliation (which includes non militaristic retaliation btw) means nukes.

This insisting of any retaliation against Russia means nukes is under the demonstrably false pretense that the ONLY form of retaliation in existence is nuking Russia.

Stalinrules posted...

China would simply sit back and wait until we killed each other, then they could takeover whatever is left.

Pretty much. China has no incentive to go all in and risk dying alongside whoever decides to throw down.

Hell even now, isn't China trying to not get too involved with this war already?

WingsOfGood posted...

Small nukes exist.

Hence why I said Taiwan would sabotage the factories in the event of (tactical) nuke use.

I wouldn't be surprised if they sabotaged the factories in the event of a direct attack on the island.

Straight up denial of China's goal, period.

Again Natau, Putin has said that any retaliation would result in a nuke. That's what that madman said.

What would your response be? And "Not do X" isn't an answer. What would you do? Nothing at all? Or would you respond in some way?

Umbreon posted...

Again Natau, Putin has said that any retaliation would result in a nuke. That's what that madman said.

Saying this over and over doesn't change reality.

Retaliation does not mean only militaristic action. Regardless if you approve.

Umbreon posted...

What would your response be? And "Not do X" isn't an answer. What would you do? Nothing at all? Or would you respond in some way?

Again, reality.

An action that you don't approve is an action regardless if you don't approve or not.

Whether one jumps into a fight, or stays out and retaliate through non violence. Both are actions, regardless if you demand bloodshed in retaliation.

NatsuSama posted...

Retaliation does not mean only militaristic action. Regardless if you approve.

So you think we should respond with non militarized action? What kind of non militarized action?