DescentBB

Have you ever had a feeling that something big is going to happen this year? I mean, significant events have already taken place this year. However, when I say that something is going to happen, I don't think that Russia would nuke a place so close to themselves, like Ukraine. Nevertheless, if Russia's deal with China continues, those "balloons" might no longer be balloons but very controllable jet-propelled drones. Some people think that China needs us, but they really don't. Even with a failing economy, their news reports whatever their government tells them to. They truly don't need us.

I'm not saying that it's the end of the US, just the possible end of some cities on the East and West coasts.

How could they possibly think they could get away with that without having their own cities nuked in retaliation?

"Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap.”
-Albert Einstein

Let's just hope the rat bastard doesn't cross that line.

I fear we are heading to WW3. Putin is crazy. China has not said this war is unfair because they want Russia to keep buying weapons from them.

Why would China start a nuclear conflict with the US?

It's not really about the blatantly insane idea of starting a nuclear war...it's about how things escalate once a war has started.

And the war has started, no matter what people want to think.

I wasn't talking about China, I was talking about Putin using nukes because he's losing this war that was only supposed to last 1 week. He didn't think the world would back Ukraine

CDN_Merlin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 2:39 amI fear we are heading to WW3.

Let me put your mind at ease. People said the same thing about Syria which was definitely a larger, more involved proxy war and that whole thing turned out OK. The war in Ukraine is largely the same players for the same reasons, and while this conflict is brutal in terms of the number of KIA and refugees, No outside countries have committed their military to the campaign (unlike Syria). One year ago I predicted we would be in this exact situation once it was clear Russia couldn't sweep Ukraine -- a stalemate in Eastern Ukraine. Things aren't going to escalate. They can't. Russia is at it's limit. They can't advance anywhere. That's why they have been grinding away at Bakhmut (a city the size of Camden, New Jersey) for several months. That's not the sign of a robust military.

Putin is not crazy. When countries go to war they do a lot of cost/benefit analysis and that analysis involves primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives. Also, the timescales of these decisions is often in the decades. It's clear Russia's primary objective was to lean on Ukraine and install a puppet government. The secondary objective is likely to secure as much land as possible because, like all conflicts, it is about securing resources. Russia is still in the game because if they can annex and secure Eastern Ukraine then the return on investment will be tremendous in a few decades.

When people fret about WW3 they almost always worry about a conflict that will lead to a nuclear exchange. I don't see any scenario where nukes could be used. It doesn't make any sense. Where would they be used and under what circumstances?

I have no worry about China. Everything about this conflict benefits them regardless of who wins. Their only focus is on turning Russia into a vassal state.

My prediction for 2023 and 2024 is this: At some point in the near future, Ukraine, with the help of it's allies, will make a big push into Eastern Ukraine. This will be to see if Russia flinches. If they do, then we'll see several years of Ukraine chipping away at Russia controlled territory until Russia finally concedes that's it not worth the effort anymore they go home. If Russia holds their ground during the next large scale offensive then Ukraine's allies will pressure them to look into resolving the conflict, and of course that will be a very interesting time as basically the whole world tries to makes sure their individual interests are accounted for.

I think your prediction is reasonable, it has that perfect realism of "both outcomes suck".

That being said, I disagree on one point: Putin and Xi are both indeed "crazy", the kind of power they wield will do that to anyone, their power will always lead to people below them only telling them what they want to hear due to fear of punishment so they receive flawed or outright poisoned information and make insane conclusions based on it. The old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" isn't just some stupid old quote, it is a fact of humanity that is very much on display right here and now. You can't predict they won't turn to nuclear weapons or spark the apocalypse because you can't predict how bad the information they are operating under will be at any given time.

Putin isn't crazy...he's ★■◆●ing evil.

They're both crazy and evil. Here's Xi Pooh doing his daily routine.

Spidey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:37 pm Putin isn't crazy...he's ★■◆●ing evil.

Plus, he's a cornered evil, which means he will resort to anything to free himself from the self-imposed trap he backed himself into. I know Ukraine wants Crimea back, but at this point, I'm willing to wager that Putin would resort to using nukes just to keep it, so Crimea should stay off the war table, as much as Ukraine wants it back.

Krom wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:35 pmPutin and Xi are both indeed "crazy", the kind of power they wield will do that to anyone, their power will always lead to people below them only telling them what they want to hear due to fear of punishment so they receive flawed or outright poisoned information and make insane conclusions based on it.

Thanks, this is a really good point I haven't considered: being fed irrational stimulus begets an irrational response. Still, I also believe that even the most authoritarian leaders maintain their power through the support of special interests, and once those special interests get tired of having their assets lose value, those leaders go out like Cesar. I think that could happen here. If Russia's "investment" in Ukraine doesn't start to pay off there will be a convenient reason for Putin to "retire."

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:05 pmI know Ukraine wants Crimea back, but at this point, I'm willing to wager that Putin would resort to using nukes just to keep it, so Crimea should stay off the war table, as much as Ukraine wants it back.

Absolutely stupid statement. Use a nuke where and for what outcome?

Where=Kiev
What outcome=Surrender

I'm not saying it would work, but if I were Putin and decided to use nukes, I would load a tactical nuke on one of my awesome new Zircon missiles aim it at Kiev and fire.

You know, the big question is not really whether Putin would use a nuke, but what we would do in response because every option is ★■◆●.

vision wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:18 pm

Krom wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:35 pmPutin and Xi are both indeed "crazy", the kind of power they wield will do that to anyone, their power will always lead to people below them only telling them what they want to hear due to fear of punishment so they receive flawed or outright poisoned information and make insane conclusions based on it.

Thanks, this is a really good point I haven't considered: being fed irrational stimulus begets an irrational response. Still, I also believe that even the most authoritarian leaders maintain their power through the support of special interests, and once those special interests get tired of having their assets lose value, those leaders go out like Cesar. I think that could happen here. If Russia's "investment" in Ukraine doesn't start to pay off there will be a convenient reason for Putin to "retire."

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:05 pmI know Ukraine wants Crimea back, but at this point, I'm willing to wager that Putin would resort to using nukes just to keep it, so Crimea should stay off the war table, as much as Ukraine wants it back.

Absolutely stupid statement. Use a nuke where and for what outcome?

What Spidey said. Kiev. Your mistake is assuming that Putin is a rational thinker in the first place, never mind that he's also being fed irrational information out of fear just to please him. He's obviously not since he originally thought he could waltz into Ukraine without resistance. What they got was an AK in every closet and people willing to use them. Hell, his military was carrying parade uniforms for some sort of deluded victory parade. Now that he's wrong, he's suffering a little cognitive dissonance and will make even more irrational decisions, unfortunately. We can only hope that your first statement above is true, that his support will wain and he will fall, because that's what it's going to take to topple a tyrant.

If Putin uses, nukes, the world has no choice to retaliate. Otherwise, he will keep attacking ex-USSR countries knowing no one will stop him.

Hummmm...let me check...yup that's number 2 on my list of shitty options.

vision wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:18 pm Thanks, this is a really good point I haven't considered: being fed irrational stimulus begets an irrational response. Still, I also believe that even the most authoritarian leaders maintain their power through the support of special interests, and once those special interests get tired of having their assets lose value, those leaders go out like Cesar. I think that could happen here. If Russia's "investment" in Ukraine doesn't start to pay off there will be a convenient reason for Putin to "retire."

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:05 pmI know Ukraine wants Crimea back, but at this point, I'm willing to wager that Putin would resort to using nukes just to keep it, so Crimea should stay off the war table, as much as Ukraine wants it back.

Absolutely stupid statement. Use a nuke where and for what outcome?

You also have to consider that the bad information runs top to bottom in both Russia and China, you cannot reasonably expect either of them to be rational actors at pretty much any level because they just aren't designed that way. The colossal failures of the Russian military are ample evidence that nobody was rational or sane at any level over the entire campaign.

Sure, on an individual level almost everyone in Russia and China are going to be rational and reasonable when presented with objective reality, but information control is so corrupted in both countries the majority of the people aren't operating in an information space even remotely resembling objective reality. It is like the conservative media silo but with actual government/military violence enforcing it as the only source and it has been going on for so long even the people running it have been consumed by it. Everyone has been drinking the kool-aid because it has been the only thing to drink for 70 years.

Well, one of Putin's biggest billionaire cronies just claimed Russia will be out of money by next year.

https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/russia-n ... deripaska/

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:27 pm How could they possibly think they could get away with that without having their own cities nuked in retaliation?

I think Russia understands that the US is made up of more valuable targets than they have. Even if both countries were to nuke each other's top 10 cities, the US would suffer greater economic losses. Our cities' GDPs are worth trillions of dollars while theirs are in the billions. It would take a lot more bombing form our side to make up for the difference. Additionally, the impact of losing a massive city goes beyond its direct GDP. Surrounding areas that depend on the city might also be affected, leading to an economic cascade. The economic impact would be felt by all, not just the city itself. Also, we don't really know what this is like in the US.

Imagine if a city the size of Boston suddenly disappeared one day. We don't know what the impact of this would be on our country. Something similar happened a long time ago in Texas to a city called Indianola in 1886. However, Indianola was a much smaller town with a population of around 5,000 people. Although 150 to 300 people died in the hurricane that destroyed Indianola, Texas was able to move on to other nearby cities like Houston and Galveston, which contributed to their growth. However, in the case of a nuclear attack, people might not have the chance to migrate to another city, and their knowledge and skills would be lost. The impact of such an attack would be devastating and long-lasting. That's just one city. Imagine 50 large cities vanishing?

Another advantage for Russia is that their priority targets might be different from ours. They might believe that it's a priority to try and knock out the whole US internet with nukes, making those cities the primary targets. This may sound far-fetched, but if we lost our internet this way, it could take weeks or even months to restore it. In contrast, Russia would be content with us knocking out their internet because all that would be left is their propaganda TV.

If they Nuke us just a little bit we can't do anything short of wiping Russia from the face of the earth, because even then it would't be an equal loss.

I was actually talking about China, not Russia.

Problem is Isaac, anyone using nukes for any reason is playing a zero sum game. Nobody wins and everyone loses. There's no coming back from a nuclear exchange between superpowers.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:49 am Problem is Isaac, anyone using nukes for any reason is playing a zero sum game. Nobody wins and everyone loses. There's no coming back from a nuclear exchange between superpowers.

WW3 is the end of all wars.

I'd expect us to be in the dark ages again if we do survive. We'd go back to pre-internet, pre-electricity, and a lot of manufacturing techniques would be forgotten. We'd be worse off than the 1700s because people in the 1700s had a civilization that knew how to live in that era.

Really weird seeing grown adults believing Russia will nuke Kiev. There is no chance this happens without the complete destruction of Russia, and if you think Putin is crazy enough to launch a missile then take comfort in knowing he can't do it personally. You can have bad intelligence leading you to believe ousting the Ukrainian government would be easy, but there is no intelligence that would suggest nuking Kiev would go well for anyone. Also, any talk about the US having more to lose economically is also stupid. If anyone in the US has learned anything it's that the rich and well off fare much better in hard times than the poor, and Russia is poor. Also, any use of nukes, anywhere, would lead to an immediate collapse of the global economy. In fact, a serious threat of a nuclear engagement would also collapse the global economy. Thankfully there isn't a serious threat and I'm not aware of a single reputable expert that thinks nuclear weapons would be used in this conflict.

You all need to relax and stop watching 24-hour and prime-time news show.

Please play out that scenario where Russia is completely destroyed if they nuked Kiev.

Personally, I can't think of any country that would risk total nuclear war over Ukraine.

I can imagine most of Europe doing its Neville Chamberland imitation within hours of the strike, and the US deciding it's not time to die.

Personally, I doubt Putin using nukes in Ukraine any time soon, but you asked for "Where and what outcome" so I provided it.

Yea, experts...I heard a lot of them saying Putin was just bluffing before going into Ukraine last year, do you really put so much faith in "experts"? Or are you just using your own rational here?

There are a whole bunch of rational reasons why Russia should not use nuclear weapons. But there were as many or even more rational reasons why Russia should not invade Ukraine and look how that turned out.

Then you've got this guy, a Russian ultra nationalist bent on creating a new giant Russia to counter the West. His daughter was murdered with a car bomb intended for him by an Ukrainian assassin not too long ago. Crazy is as crazy does. He's the type of guy who would advocate the use of nukes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wh ... 022-08-21/

Jackass. He deserved the laughter.

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/03/audi ... -he-claims

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:51 pm Jackass. He deserved the laughter.

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/03/audi ... -he-claims

It's unreal how we're living in a comedy skit

Spidey wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:45 pmPlease play out that scenario where Russia is completely destroyed if they nuked Kiev.

Right now Russia has allies who are helping them economically even if it's only by taking a neutral position. They can do this because the Ukraine War is not a global conflict, and even though it affects a lot of global economic players it's quite localized. The nuking of Kiev would be such an insane escalation that no country would accept it. The reason is obvious: a country who is desperate enough to resort to nuclear attacks in an effort to annex their neighbor's land cannot be allowed to exist. A nuke exploding over Kiev would make every global recession we've had so far look like a party. We're talking complete economic collapse. No more trade and insane levels of hoarding, enough that it would cause new conflicts to erupt almost instantly all over the world. No country can stand for this. There would be an immediate, united, global coalition to quarantine Russia, remove their government from power, and forcibly dismantle their nuclear weapons program. And possibly breaking up Russia into smaller economic regions that are under the influence of the International coalition. Not doing this sets a precedent that it's OK to just use nukes in any small conflict and we all can guess where that will lead. Of course, Russia might rebel an launch nukes against another nuclear power in an effort to continue existing -- and then you can kiss your loved ones good-bye.

Spidey wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:45 pmYea, experts...I heard a lot of them saying Putin was just bluffing before going into Ukraine last year, do you really put so much faith in "experts"? Or are you just using your own rational here?

I'm not sure what garbage news sources you take in but in the several months of escalation before the invasion all I heard was experts saying it was highly likely Russia's military would cross the border. The reason being that the number of troops and equipment at one point exceeded the "posturing" level and crossed into the pending invasion level. And of course, the US was showing Russia's hand a couple weeks before the actual invasion. It wasn't a surprise to me, was it a surprise to you?

Well thank you for sharing that opinion, and no, I wasn't surprised at all, but my point was only that you can't throw a rock without hitting an "expert" these days.

Vision,

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Vladimir Putin is rumored to have cancer. If his condition is terminal, it is difficult to predict what his rational decisions may be. Considering the possibility that Putin's health condition is terminal, it is worth acknowledging that he may view the situation as a losing battle and might resort to unconventional or unpredictable tactics. In other words, a nuke might be seen as rage-quitting. If you are unsure whether Putin would do that, you might ask yourself if he's that selfish.

You do realize that this information is almost a year old. If Putin has both prostate cancer and Parkinsons, you'd think it would've affected him worse by now and be hard to hide in public appearances. Especially Parkinsons. But yes, a death sentence tends to make people do irrational things. The world can only hope that other leaders in Russia do not want to see the destruction of their country and the world at the hands of a dying madman.

Isaac wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:04 amIf you are unsure whether Putin would do that, you might ask yourself if he's that selfish.

I don't think he's selfish at all. He acting in what he thinks is Russia's best interest and he might be right depending on how things pan out. Keep in mind that Russia has been struggling for a long time. Annexing Eastern Ukraine would be a tremendous boost for Russia in the long term. It's a gamble, but not a crazy one. This is the calculus of war. Also, crooked elections aside, Putin is actually well loved in Russia so he doesn't have to worry about his legacy too much as many believe he is responsible for improving everyone's lives after the slump following the collapse of the USSR (it's not just propaganda, you can actually track economic success along with his presidency).

Maybe it needs to be said, and I've had to remind a friend of mine a few times, but wars aren't fought for romantic ideals like morals or ethics. It's always "you have this thing I want and I'm going to take it." You can caricature Putin as a crazy, unhinged dictator, but like all dictators they exist because special interests prop them up and those interests signed off on this invasion. (Those special interests are the people we target with economic sanctions.)

If that's what he thinks is best for Russia, are you saying he's not very smart? His actions are self-destructive. Annexing Eastern Ukraine is not just a risky move but also a violation of international law and the rights of a sovereign country. It's like saying, "I see your house, and I like it, so I'm going to take it, and you can't stop me." That's not how civilized countries operate, and it shows how dangerous it is for Russia to remain in existence.

If Putin truly cared about Russia's future, he would disarm and prioritize competing in global trade, like China. That would not only benefit Russia's economy but also reduce the need for military spending in ours. Right now, too much of our military's justification for a higher budget is based on the threat of Russia. By shifting our focus to economic competition and peaceful cooperation, we can create a safer and more prosperous future for everyone.

He may be acting in what he "thinks" is in Russia's best interests, but he's not living in reality. He's still living in the past, with the delusional desire to rebuild a stagnant and repressive state he's somehow deluded enough to think was all sugar and honey, totally ignoring and whitewashing the reasons for the fall of the Soviets in the first place. People wanted OUT. Nation states wanted OUT. Stagnant economies, brutal repression or outright assassination of dissidents and clamping down of any freedoms within their other nation states, no advancement in technology for better living standards, growing food or even for prosecuting future wars to protect itself. That was the reality Soviet Empire and it died decades ago. Remember, the Soviets had to build border walls just to keep their people IN and that hated Western influence OUT. Russia under the Soviets may have been a great power, but it was built out of crumbling bricks made from the blood and tears left over from WWII, by force and invasion and it fell apart from the inside. If Putin or his nationalist cronies believe that using nukes would be good for Russia, he IS definitely not rational.

Of course the people of Russia like Putin, but it's mostly the older population that sits around watching state TV that seems to have fond memories of their Soviet past and like what Putin is saying. Putin knows that, so he controls the state media and spoon feeds them his crap as fact. They have no idea that Putin's army is guilty of heinous war crimes, the wholesale wanton destruction of people's homes, cities and infrastructure and the murder/torture of innocent men, women and children. He tells his thralls only that's Russia's invasion was somehow justified to keep out some weird Neo Nazi Ukrainian threat. The ONLY smart thing Putin has done in all this is to control the state media, which is in the standard dictator playbook anyway. Control the media, control the masses. All the rest of his creations as "president", the new oligarchy and resulting kleptocracy, has ruined Russia as a nation. Militarily, they're still in the Soviet past and it shows. The younger generation however wants no part of him since they're more hooked into the internet and know the truth. Thousands of young men have fled Russia rather than be conscripted into the army as cannon fodder for Putin. Russia's downfall won't be this war, but instead the stale old ideas of the past that keep being dumped on them as the only solution to Russia's greatness by leaders who are drunk on personal power and the past, not country. If Russia is under threat, it's via Putin, not the West.

Isaac wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:44 pmIf that's what he thinks is best for Russia, are you saying he's not very smart? His actions are self-destructive. Annexing Eastern Ukraine is not just a risky move but also a violation of international law and the rights of a sovereign country.

They aren't as self destructive as you think. The land they are trying to grab is extremely valuable. When Russia moved into Crimea and Donbas almost was done about it except some sanctions that clearly didn't deter them. There is a good chance that this conflict ends in a stalemate where Russia controls Eastern Ukraine. This is a huge, huge win for them. The only way this is bad for Russia in the long term is if they get pushed back to their borders. No one cares about international law because it's only enforceable when you completely dominate your opponent.

Isaac wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:44 pmIt's like saying, "I see your house, and I like it, so I'm going to take it, and you can't stop me." That's not how civilized countries operate, and it shows how dangerous it is for Russia to remain in existence.

I agree Russia should be dissolved in a way that benefits everyone, but let's not pretend being "civilized" has anything to do with how countries make decisions. All countries have basically three tools to reach their goals: diplomatic strength, economic strength, and military strength (the last resort). Russia has spent years buying off politicians and flooding the world with pro-Russian propaganda to reach it's goals. They've exhausted their options and have run out of time so now they are using their military. This is how the world works (until we reach a period of resource post-scarcity).

Isaac wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:44 pmIf Putin truly cared about Russia's future, he would disarm and prioritize competing in global trade, like China.

They can't. Russia is super weak economically. They don't manufacture anything and all their exports are agriculture and natural resources. This is partly why they are invading Ukraine because Ukraine is a direct competitor in agriculture and natural resources. Literally this is a kind of corporate takeover using the military. All those special interests that prop up Putin want to expand business and Ukraine is the path of least resistance, which is weird to think rolling tanks into another country is easy, but this is actually the position Russia is in on the global economic stage.

Putin is not selfish, why would anyone believe someone that has a dozen houses but doesn't think twice about destroying other people's houses was selfish.

Vision, I get that Russia might think grabbing Eastern Ukraine is a smart move, but let's not forget that it violates international law and the rights of Ukrainians. The conflict in Donbas and Crimea has caused a lot of pain and suffering, and it's not something to take lightly. Moreover, the idea that Russia will inevitably win the conflict is a bit of a stretch. Wars have a way of backfiring and causing unintended consequences, and the conflict has already cost Russia a lot of money and goodwill. Sanctions may not be perfect, but they have hurt Russia's economy and reputation. And let's not forget that international law is not just some abstract concept; it's what keeps the world from falling into chaos. Ignoring it for the sake of short-term gains is not a good idea, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. So, instead of trying to grab land that doesn't belong to them, maybe Russia should focus on building better relationships with its neighbors and competing in the global economy. That would be a win-win for everyone, including Russia.

Spidey wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:28 pm Putin is not selfish, why would anyone believe someone that has a dozen houses but doesn't think twice about destroying other people's houses was selfish.

Exactly. Did you hear about the time Putin swiped a championship ring from Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots? He showed Putin his Super Bowl ring during a meeting in St. Petersburg back in 2005. And what does Putin do? He puts the ring on, checks it out, and then walks away with it! Just takes off with it like it's no big deal! Later Putin's people said "It was a gift from Kraft".
edit: %#* the patriots