World War 3 could be 'unleashed soon' and it'd be 'nuclear' - Russian State TV

Brandon is to blame, surely. His weakness, his senility, his inability to defend America from the illegal invaders, his inability to defend American allies from radical Islamic terrorists, his inability to defend the world from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and so much more. Brandon is a weak incompetent dolt but he is also a stooge because if he hadn't been him it would have been someone else.

We, America, have been on this path for a long time and therefore we all share some blame in this. We have spent the last 5+ decades watching communism and socialism and Marxism and all the other various flavors ideological cancer flourish and prosper; today they call themselves progressives. Our country was building most practically functional form of freedom humanity has ever managed to create and we let it die a slow internal death before our very eyes. We act like we're still a shining beacon, playing power broker on the world stage as if we're stronger than our enemies, but in reality we are a dim bulb inches away from blinking out entirely.

 

That was past tense. Its already spread. Its already taken over. The time to stop it was decades ago when we actually gave a damn, and did make some attempts to put it down, some successful, but we didn't go far enough and so it came back and back and back, stronger and stronger every time, and now its strength eclipses the geopolitical landscape.

 

Never underestimate a radicals ability to justify any means that sees their ends met. Look at all the terror, both literal and metaphorical, the radicals in our own country have brought to justify the things they want.

 

Besides the war in the Ukraine there is much to be learned from their rhetoric. I think of the polls I see in American of the people who would support a socialist regime. The percentage of people who would not fight to defend our country. The number of people who wish to limit free speech, un-arm our military and police force. The number of people who do not have an understanding of economics and want the government to control our corporations and redistribute the wealth. Do they not see how countries like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Viet Nam, North Korea, and many of the Muslim countries treat their own citizens. Who would have ever thought that Canada would have a leader who would act like a dictator?

 

Russia is a vey weak opportunist. Thats all they are. The Berlin wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. And we had a cap on ISIS and Iran until Biden came in. Hell, he can't even stop illegals from crossing our own border is historical numbers. Russia isn't launching anything at anyone. You can count on it

 

And the reason proliferation occurred is that it was very enriching to do so. Also conventional policies to not allow that(ie: We should have murdered the spies in Operation Manhattan) is "not who we are". But in view of the world today, it's who we should have been. Treason and espionage are dealt with by death. I'd propose to move all military operations to be governed by the U.S Tribunals, and that any activity involving our military is governed by those, not by state or federal law. That way the SCOTUS doesn't get its hands involved in military matters.

 

I have asked myself the same question. Antiaging drugs are something we can all benefit from.

 

So let it get worse before the inevitable conflict occurs, or lance the boil now then? Thanks for putting it so simply, let's lance that boil then if its coming anyway and will only get worse over time.

 

What do you think Biden should have done/has done wrong so far?

 

1) not withdrawing all ABMs from the Nations Bordering Russia
2) Supporting Ukraine membership in NATO

There are many more but that is a few to get things rolling.

 

1) By ABM's I assume you mean ballistic missiles? I think that is moot, as we have adequate means of ballistic missile attacks on Russia without those.
2) I'm ok with that, but the nature of your other post was that Biden was driving Putin/Russia towards nuclear war with his policies. Wouldn't these two proposals being doing the opposite, elevating the threat? Unless you believe they would intimidate Putin/Russia into backing off?

 

1) No .. ABMs are not ballistic missiles .. but that would also count as a threat were it the case .. so you are wrong .. even if your misunderstanding was true. ABM's are anti ballistic missiles .. missiles intended to take out an ICMB.

2) NATO's poking the bear has not caused Putin to back off .. only inflamed the bear - what brought us to this point to begin with ..

 

Well, for starters, saying this was pretty f***ing stupid:

"And so, I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera. "

Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference | The White House

Also, his initial round of sanctions were weak. He looked weak in imposing them, and they almost certainly emboldened Russia. Biden hyped them up over and over again, and when he finally unveiled them, there was a collective "that's it?!?" (and not just from Putin - pretty much the whole world reacted that way). He didn't go after SWIFT. He didn't go after oil and gas. He was, like he always is, weak and ineffective.

 

It's even more remarkable when you consider that many of the original A-Bomb creators were concerned that they might light our atmosphere on fire and still went ahead with construction of said bomb

 

I wish I felt as confident about this as you do. I think it's unlikely, but there's some uncertainty there. And for that matter, I'm dubious we'd respond forcefully to a limited use of nuclear weapons under Biden's "leadership".

For example, let's say tomorrow some enterprising Russian soldiers deploy one of the variety of tactical nuclear weapons they have at their disposal on a mostly military target, perhaps even outside of any major Ukrainian cities, thus limiting the civilian casualties. There is a smoldering crater with what remains of a few hundred dead Ukrainian soldiers and a mild bit of radioactivity in the area. Do you think Biden is going to start trading major cities with Russia at that point? I don't.

 

1) Sorry for the confusion, but that makes more sense, unless technology advances have rendered the need for ABM's in neighboring countries not needed. I still don't see a big benefit of having ABM's in neighboring countries. I think having them in the Scandinavian countries would be more effective, as the shortest route to the US is over the north pole region.
2) I still don't understand you're logic, are you saying Biden should have "poked the bear" more? Seems like either I'm not understanding, or you are saying two opposite things.
Here's what you originally wrote:
"1) not withdrawing all ABMs from the Nations Bordering Russia
2) Supporting Ukraine membership in NATO"

 

ABM's don't really work in real world scenarios unfortunately

 

I was responding to an attack on US soil. Which isn't going to happen.
If they used a tactical nuke on Ukraine, it would be the end of Russia politically as well as their ability to bank in the world. They would literally starve to death.

 

Ahh, sorry, I missed that bit of context. Yes, I agree, Russia is not going to strike the US homeland with nuclear weapons over Javelin shipments.

 

I have a feeling they (US military) have anti ballistic lasers. I've seen them tested that have the platform loaded on a large plane like an AWACS. They seemed extremely effective, but of course, that's the video they supplied, so it wouldn't show the failures. The technology already exists, just a matter of powering them.

 

Nuking Ukraine would push Europe over the edge.

You never know with Putin, but that would be dumb.

 

There was a program to mount a laser on the nose of a Boeing 747 and use it to shoot down ballistic missiles. That program was abandoned over a decade ago.

Boeing YAL-1 - Wikipedia

 

My error .. should read "Biden/NATO" poking the bear led to this .... take out the word "not" sorry for confusion

First thing about ABMs is that we don't have the ability to stop an ICBM once it is aloft and en route. The only time you have a reasonable chance of hitting an ICBM is to get it in the boost phase .. just after it launches.. Looking at a map .. Russia and Alaska are literally only a few miles apart .. so that would be the shortest route .. but perhaps not the most likely...

Regardless .. we should not be putting them anywhere .. as this forces Russia to take counter measures .. counter measures which Russia indeed did take when after unilaterally backing out of the ABM treaty around 2002 .. Bush announced his grand plan to put ABM's in Czechoslovakia and Poland in 2007.

Russia's response was

1) build short range nuclear cruse missiles -- in violation of the short -intermediate range treaty .. the point of which is to take out the ICBM's prior to launch .. but also to be able to launch at the US from things like Container ships

2) build more and better subs

3) increase anti satellite capabilities.

Now .. what was threatened .. but did not happen .. Putin figuring that the above measures were enough to restabilize nuclear detente' - was "Nukes in Space" If the idea of a nuke from Russia 30 minutes away gives you trouble .. how much more nasty would having one above your head .. 30 seconds away .. and how much closer to midnight on the doomsday clock .. being on such a hair trigger.

 

I think there's a general misperception about orbital mechanics among the population. I mostly see it in conversations about "Rods from God". People seem to think that stuff can be "dropped" from orbit and it'd fall down and hit Earth, kind of like dropping a bowling ball from a really tall skyscraper. It doesn't work like that though. If you were to take a bowling ball on a spacewalk outside the ISS and "drop" / release it, it's not going to fall down to Earth. It's going to continue floating alongside the ISS and stay in orbit for a really long time. Same with Rods from God or a nuke released from a satellite. It takes some thrust impulse to change it's velocity enough that it'll eventually come in contact with the surface of the Earth. That generally means fuel and rocket engines. All that stuff is heavy, and expensive, and virtually impossible to do any maintenance on while in orbit. And it's not super quick either. Like, you're probably looking at a flight time of tens of minutes still from "press the button" to "nuke on target". All in all, it's a much more expensive system than our current nuclear triad and for very little actual benefit. It might even be inferior in some ways.

 

First, thanks for clarifying. Makes more sense now...
Secondly, and I haven't checked in a couple of years, but the plan was to take them out as they return from orbit, after they release the warheads. The plan is/was to intercept the individual warheads. I don't know what newer technology is employed or they are capable of doing. Ground based lasers have issues with the atmospheric conditions. And I wouldn't be surprised if the US, Russia and China have nukes on satellites. We already know China has used lasers from satellites to shoot down other satellites. And that was a while ago......