Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Moscow has 1000’s of warheads pointing at it now from Turkey and Eastern Europe. And that’s just what we “know” about.
Moscow and Russia are gone in seconds if it crosses the line, regardless of what Moscow might do before, during or after it disappears.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by
Morgan..
Russia if she so chose, could destroy England in the blink of an eye. We are not talking about primitive Iraq, Libya or Syria (from a military point of view), we are talking about a nuclear superpower that has and is developing weapons, of which a single one could wipe London and much of the south of the map.
I don’t think anybody is doubting this. I am certainly not. All what you say works both ways.
UK if it so chose could destroy Russia in the blink of an eye. It is MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. When, as you say “Russia is wiping us out” they will be wiping themselves out too. Chain Reaction, Overkill, Pre-emptive strikes and M.A.D. are all important principles, please consider them in your equations in nuclear war.
To compare Russia v England, (which should read UK, which should really read NATO) is of course a mismatch.
So what if you have 97 pistols and I have one. Your 97 chances to kill me will be worthless if I use my one correctly x Then of course, despite your 97 v 1 ratio, it will be your mate that kills me after your dead, and like me he only had one shot.
For gods sake. It was a charade. All posture. All a blag. All sides knew what was going to happen. All sides were communicating.
Of course. Nonetheless, Putin could have prevented it IF he really wanted to and IF he is the Boss as sceptical implies, but he would have to have been whisked off immediately afterwards to spend the rest of his life, together with family in a bunker.
Reverse the situation. If Nato / USA / UK were involved in a Civil war in Haiti, Cuba or Jamaica, would they let Putin and Russia come in on bombing raids from the other side of the world? No chance.
You’re living in a fantasy of you think that the raid was showing Putin who is boss.
The raid shows that Putin ISN’T the Boss in that region. If he were boss he would have prevented it from happening. If he isn’t Boss, then who is?
Putin (a man I don’t like) will be provoked enough to make more than a token response.
He will do sweet fa about it. What can he do other than to nuke region? What did Putin do when Turkey shot his jet down, and assasinated the Russian ambassador? He went to Turkey and praised and grovelled to Erdogan a few months later.
He remains the decisive element in Syria
Maybe so, IN Syria. I believe there are more decisive elements OUTSIDE of Syria on its borders, than IN Syria, like Nato, Israel, Turkey, Iran and USA.
But the confidence with which you argue here betrays a charlatan who likes to cover a poor hand with smooth talk.
As of yet, you haven’t countered any of my arguments. Only agreed with them. You have wrote NOTHING on Russian Air supremacy or Command of the Sea they will need to dominate the region like you claim.
It’s the submarine and the guided missile which has superiority now
Many countries have them, not just Russia. Russia doesn’t and never has dominated the world of Nuclear Submarines. Russia doesn’t have Command of the Seas.
Russian submarines are less of a threat to NATO, than NATO submarines are to Russia. There’s a lot more NON Russian nuclear submarines on Earth than there are Russian ones. Russian nuclear submarines cannot be singled out for excellence any more than French, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, British or American.The last time airpower counted for anything in nuclear conflict was in the late 1950s
There wasn’t any “nuclear conflict” in the late 1950’s.
But the confidence with which you argue here
is as equal if not greater than your confidence? Do you find my confidence unnerving?
Are you aware you haven’t countered any of my arguments yet? and that I have countered and nullified many of yours?
This bombing raid is very limited. It’s turning out to be a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing but total British subservience to the United States.
I think this raid signifies many things. The most important being:
- When we turn up we have Air supremacy AND Command of the Sea. (That has massive implications)
- The Russians saw us coming. Why didn’t they hinder, prevent or stop us? (This has massive implications)
- The last time a Russian jet was shot down by Erdogan’s Turkey, Putin has since been to praise him and grovel up to him in Turkey. (This has massive implications)
- Why didn’t Putin take on Turkey?
- If Putin won’t take on Turkey for shooting his jet down, do you think he’ll be in a rush take on USA or Nato?
- Why hasn’t Putin shot down any Israeli or Turkish jets that have ventured into Syria on missions?
- Who has Air supremacy over Syrian airspace? Syria? Turkey? Iran? Russia? A joint Syrian-Russian force? Israel? USA? None?
I believe Israel ultimately has Air supremacy over Syrian airspace, and Turkey also has an influence in the north of Syria. NATO ultimately has Air supremacy, as would Russia, but that would entail moving massive fleets and forces to the mediterranean.
The raid was an exercise to remind Putin of that dynamic, and invite him to change that dynamic. He very wisely declined that offer. He don’t fancy bunker life much.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by Morgan..
Let’s just hope they’re ultra-careful (which will achieve nothing) because any military strike on Syria will accomplish sweet fa unless it leads to a major international crisis.
scep, I would argue this statement of yours advocates “more killing in Syria” more than anything I’ve said.
Only a matter of time before war breaks out somewhere , the human race has been killing each other since time began.. whats new?
War is as integral to humanity as love and peace.
Poetry
for me
has never been or will be
my cup of tea
☕
I think we should keep a remained presence there too, which I believe would diffuse the situation.
As I stated, only an idiot thinks that the solution to the Syrian war is more killing.
I assume the idiot is me? if not, I’ll argue for the idiot anyway. Where have I advocated more killing? How does “diffusing the situation” or “sending the Lions in to scatter and disperse the rampaging cheetahs and leopards” equate to more killing?
Only an idiot could infer the second from the first. Only an idiot could read diffusing the situation as more killing.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by
