Sending Tanks To The Ukraine.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Russia has a permanent airbase in Khmeimim , Syria but Syria is recognized as a longtime Russian client state

America Is Being Let Down by Diploma-Dumbo Diplomacy

Which is why we should reinstitute and use friendship with Russia to make Putin get Assad off Russia's rival for the friendship of Syria, which is Iran. Our State Department is mentally incapable of thinking beyond the simple and narrow.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wagner Group is a Russian company that employs Russians, was paid for by Russians, and acts as a de facto part of the Russian Government.

They tried their best not to directly attack us, for the most part just attacking our allies. trump and Putin worked things out so our allies would be killed, and Putin and Iran could have a major win in Syria. The one time they did directly attack Americans was the Battle of Khasham(in Deir ez-Zor Governorate, so I think you are referring to it when you say "Deir Ezzor").

Putin, Iran, and Turkey made out like bandits in Syria. Our allies were all killed. It was all a huge failure for trump.

The Boat People Were Chickenhawks

Those Syrians were the same kind of allies we had in Vietnam: crooks, cowards, and collaborators. Good riddance.

 

[Walt]

I would argue that North Korea would win- if it ever came to it- and that's what it's all about.

China and North Korea are closer than our media would have us believe. ' Divide and conquer ' is a mantra with barnacles on it.

I believe the Germans are better off for having lost WWII, and the North Koreans would have been better off if they had lost the Korean War. North Korea is amazingly backwards and poor, while South Korea is a much better place to live. I will agree that South Korea had its bumpy road, but it has turned out well.

North Korea is a problem. They close themselves off, live in poverty, and are very militaristic. I reassure you, China is not happy with them.

 

[moon]

I believe the Germans are better off for having lost WWII, and the North Koreans would have been better off if they had lost the Korean War. North Korea is amazingly backwards and poor, while South Korea is a much better place to live. I will agree that South Korea had its bumpy road, but it has turned out well.

North Korea is a problem. They close themselves off, live in poverty, and are very militaristic. I reassure you, China is not happy with them.

The North would win, I believe , because it is militaristic. That's why it's militaristic.
Yes, I'm sure that the Chinese were staggered at the speed with which NK became a nuclear power. NOBODY wants a nuclear power on their doormat. Ask the Russians.
I can't agree that the Germans are better off. They lost half their country to one enemy and the other half to another. The Russians gave their half back.

 

[Walt]

The North would win

If the war continued today? North Korea is so poor, it is hard to believe they could win a long term war. Modern wars burn fuel at insane rates, and North Korea does not even have reasonable amounts of fuel.

Assuming conventionally war, North Korea would use their large artillery force, combined with their huge stockpile of ammunition to demolish anything within range of the border (which includes a third of the South Koreans, and their most important city Seoul. The South Koreans and Americans would use our air forces to knock out those guns, but far more of those guns would be knocked out just by being old, poorly maintained, and at that point over used. The damage would have already been done, but fewer lives would have been lost than you would think, because the South Koreans do have a lot of bomb shelters. At that point, South Korea begins invading North Korea with tanks and air supremacy.

Yes, I'm sure that the Chinese were staggered at the speed with which NK became a nuclear power.

North Korea's speed is not all that amazing. The program started in 1962, and the first test nuclear explosion happened in 2006.

China is more worried by their poverty, and closed off nature. China would love to have a partner they could trade with, not one that is begging for free fuel and food.

NOBODY wants a nuclear power on their doormat. Ask the Russians.

Why the Russians? The USA, China, and North Korea are close to Russia's borders, but in places that they would not consider close to their heartland. The UK and France are not particularly big nuclear powers, and are not on Russia's "doormat." Moscow (unlike Washington) is far inland, so far from submarines with missiles. India and Pakistan have small nuclear forces, and no reason to use them against Russia. Israel could potentially attack Russia with nuclear weapons, but again not on their "doormat".

 

[moon]

Assuming conventionally war, North Korea would use their large artillery force,

We need a new appraisal of the possible outcomes of a war against a nuclear power. From my viewpoint, the concept of a ' conventional war' remains good only until one nuclear power- or the other - looks to be losing. Then it becomes a nuclear war. That's what nukes are for.

We should not actually go as far as testing this ' theory ' in practice. It's so logical that it doesn't even qualify as a ' theory '. That's the way it would be.

Motto; NEVER go to war with a nuclear power. It is unwinnable.

NK, incidentally, has ICBMs. That's remarkable speed of development.

 

[Walt]

We need a new appraisal of the possible outcomes of a war against a nuclear power.

North Korea could not win a nuclear war. Let's say they hit Tokyo with a 100 kiloton nuclear weapon, and killed 2 million people. North Korea would be wiped off the map, and no one would be willing to defend them. They would still lose.

They would just do more destruction to others before losing. And guarantee more destruction to themselves. When dealing with a country willing to fire nuclear weapons at others, destroying any site (no matter how many civilians are around it) starts seeming very proportional.

North Korea's nuclear weapons could work to keep from being attacked, but once they start a war, there is no way that nuclear weapons make things better for them.

NK, incidentally, has ICBMs. That's remarkable speed of development.

They tested ICBM's, but have not deployed them yet, so in a matter of speaking they have ICBMs. To deploy them, they would have to develop ICBM's that can carry payloads, and be aimed.

So after 60+ years of development, they still do not have ICBM's they can use. That is fast to you?

 

[debatefix]

The Birchers Were Right for the Wrong Reason

The Chicoms hated the Bolshies from as early as 1930. So this "monolithic Communism" was an ignorant CIA scare-story from the very beginning. Russia would not have intervened if MacArthur had nuked the Chinese invasion force staging inside China. Both Koreas would have been united and free. But Truman, a whore of the Military-Industrial Complex, needed to provide an excuse for massive military spending, so he let China maintain its power.

We could have dropped some nukes on China when they intervened in the Korean war. But it wouldn't have changed much. Back then, China had a larger population than the U.S. What could we have done. Invade China and root out the commies? We couldn't even do that in South Vietnam. Which was a much smaller country.

 

[debatefix]

1812 Overture

Putin is the last holdout against the tyranny of the Globalist Empire. Unlike decadent America, he is serious about enforcing Russia's own Monroe Doctrine, which is his right as much as it used to be ours.

The Ukraine's military is a puppet army financed solely by the wealthiest and most militarily advanced power in the world. But the same can be said about the Nazis and Napoleon.

Russia has no business invading the Ukraine. As for the Monroe Doctrine, It's a joke. Have you seen this?

 

[debatefix]

The Chinese did not want North Korea to collapse, and did not want to have US troops on their border. Right or wrong, they decided to enter the war.

Fuck China. If they didn't want NK to collapse, they shouldn't have supported North Korea invading South Korea.

 

[debatefix]

what a pile. payback for Vietnam determines a war policy in Ukraine? moronic
US support swamps the little the Euros do -they take a free ride for the most part on our dime

Giving the Ukraine weapons is a HELL of a lot better than supporting enemy muslim Afghan scum in their war with Russia. 9-11 was our payback for that.

 

[debatefix]

but now we have al th makings of a traditional war against Russia with armor -oh that will never happen?
Who would ever have thought tanks when we started this escalation? Put the war material out there, it has a way of being used

Russia dug their own grave. Who invaded who. Ukraine deserves our support.

 

[moon]

North Korea could not win a nuclear war. Let's say they hit Tokyo with a 100 kiloton nuclear weapon, and killed 2 million people. North Korea would be wiped off the map, and no one would be willing to defend them. They would still lose.

They would just do more destruction to others before losing. And guarantee more destruction to themselves. When dealing with a country willing to fire nuclear weapons at others, destroying any site (no matter how many civilians are around it) starts seeming very proportional.

North Korea's nuclear weapons could work to keep from being attacked, but once they start a war, there is no way that nuclear weapons make things better for them.



They tested ICBM's, but have not deployed them yet, so in a matter of speaking they have ICBMs. To deploy them, they would have to develop ICBM's that can carry payloads, and be aimed.

So after 60+ years of development, they still do not have ICBM's they can use. That is fast to you?

Just Tokyo, eh ? Add to that anything else within range- and neither you nor I know what that range is.
Again- push a nuclear power in a conventional war and nukes are guaranteed.
The trouble with the American way of viewing war is that nobody expects it to involve the N. American seaboards. N.Korean ICBMs are not taken seriously- as you evidence- and you expect, it seems, the Chinese to sit back and endure US nuke attacks on its borders . This arrogance will be fatal if it isn't curbed.

Walt;

North Korea could not win a nuclear war.

Neither could we. Nobody could- so we should not be pushing for one.

 

[Walt]

Add to that anything else within range- and neither you nor I know what that range is.

Nor does North Korea. They have not had a chance to test a payload in an ICBM aimed at a specific target. It would be a difficult thing for them to test, because they would need control over a launch site, and a target site spaced 10,000 miles apart; they are nowhere near a world superpower, so that is not going to happen. They are having trouble having embassies 10,000 miles apart.

Again- push a nuclear power in a conventional war and nukes are guaranteed.

There have been many conventional wars with nuclear powers, and only one went nuclear. That is as far from a guarantee as you can get.

The trouble with the American way of viewing war is that nobody expects it to involve the N. American seaboards. N.Korean ICBMs are not taken seriously

For well over 60 years, America has expected a nuclear war, not just hitting the seaboard, but the entire country. It is baked into war plans, but also the basic understanding American adults have of the world.

and you expect, it seems, the Chinese to sit back and endure US nuke attacks on its borders .

South Korea is talking about developing their own nuclear weapons because they do not see us as using nuclear weapons. North Korea would use a nuclear weapon, and then we would respond with conventional weapons. South Korea wants to respond with nuclear weapons.

I doubt the South Koreans would care how the Chinese would react. The vast majority of South Koreans would already be dead. It is mutually assured destruction, but only in Korea.

Neither could we. Nobody could- so we should not be pushing for one.

The main purpose of nuclear weapons seems to be to scare opponents away from fighting a war, not to do much in the war that follows. That being said, there is a flaw in nuclear weapons that would allow for a victory.

First, you cannot scare opponents away from a war that you start. So Ukraine could care less that the Russians who invade them have nuclear weapons, and the South Koreans would not care that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons if the North Koreans invaded. Second, it becomes extremely destructive to everyone if the nuclear weapons are used. There is a real chance Russian or North Korean military commanders would refuse an order to use them. When you game it all out, nuclear weapons can sometimes lead to a complete defeat that the lack of nuclear weapons would have avoided.

There is also a less understood chance that South Korea and the USA would be more aggressive if they thought they had to go to war with North Korea. There are plans to try to take out the nuclear weapons and/or the command structure in North Korea, when there was no similar plans for Iraq. This could mean defeating North Korea would go faster than defeating Iraq.

 

[moon]

Nor does North Korea. They have not had a chance to test a payload in an ICBM aimed at a specific target. It would be a difficult thing for them to test, because they would need control over a launch site, and a target site spaced 10,000 miles apart; they are nowhere near a world superpower, so that is not going to happen. They are having trouble having embassies 10,000 miles apart.

That's just a matter of understanding the science- which countries with ballistic missiles certainly do.

There have been many conventional wars with nuclear powers, and only one went nuclear. That is as far from a guarantee as you can get.

That's right- it went nuclear out of malice. The opponents were almost unarmed.

For well over 60 years, America has expected a nuclear war, not just hitting the seaboard, but the entire country. It is baked into war plans, but also the basic understanding American adults have of the world.

That's why the Russians almost certainly believe that the US would opt for a first strike. As a result, there is no way that they will allow NATO into Ukraine. That's my understanding of the Russian position. It's been said over and over by international military experts- push the Russians into a conventional defeat and nukes will surely follow. I agree.

South Korea is talking about developing their own nuclear weapons because they do not see us as using nuclear weapons. North Korea would use a nuclear weapon, and then we would respond with conventional weapons. South Korea wants to respond with nuclear weapons.

I doubt the South Koreans would care how the Chinese would react. The vast majority of South Koreans would already be dead. It is mutually assured destruction, but only in Korea.

Oh, I see- you envision a ' limited nuclear catastrophe '. Good luck with that. People of like mind should be removed from positions of power immediately.

The main purpose of nuclear weapons seems to be to scare opponents away from fighting a war, not to do much in the war that follows. That being said, there is a flaw in nuclear weapons that would allow for a victory.

First, you cannot scare opponents away from a war that you start. So Ukraine could care less that the Russians who invade them have nuclear weapons, and the South Koreans would not care that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons if the North Koreans invaded. Second, it becomes extremely destructive to everyone if the nuclear weapons are used. There is a real chance Russian or North Korean military commanders would refuse an order to use them. When you game it all out, nuclear weapons can sometimes lead to a complete defeat that the lack of nuclear weapons would have avoided.

There is also a less understood chance that South Korea and the USA would be more aggressive if they thought they had to go to war with North Korea. There are plans to try to take out the nuclear weapons and/or the command structure in North Korea, when there was no similar plans for Iraq. This could mean defeating North Korea would go faster than defeating Iraq.

The strategy is quite simple, based upon known values. The US used atomic bombs , quite unnecessarily, against a defeated opponent. It was a callous slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, women and children. So no country can expect anything different from the US. Their only hope of survival, as a free society of their own choosing, is to also be nuclear armed. Nothing else will turn the insane point of US power-craving- as we've seen in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The US even backs fascist Israel militarily and goes to war on its behalf, even though the UN- and the world at large- marks it as a criminal state.
India, Pakistan and N. Korea are nuclear armed- and no friends of the US empire. It goes without saying that neither the Russian nor the Chinese are particular about which other, non-Western, countries develop nukes for their own defense against US ' democracy '. So the US, by its nuclear madness, set in motion a nuclear chain of events that it cannot control. It hopes to continue its hegemony through conventional warfare- but the world has had enough of that. It's likely that the Russians would come to the aid of Iran , once the US attacks it, as planned- and the Chinese will not permit the defeat of N.Korea. So, best that Yangui goes home, Walt- and then you can quit trying to formulate how America is going to continue into the future by means of conventional warfare overseas. Imo- it ain't gonna happen

 

[moon]

Winter woes for the most vulnerable
How extreme cold, inflation and spiralling costs are affecting American life.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/...winter-how-cold-affects-those-most-vulnerable

Perhaps we could park up some tanks as shelters for the freezing homeless ?

 

[Walt]

That's just a matter of understanding the science- which countries with ballistic missiles certainly do.

Targeting an ICBM is one of the most complex parts of an ICBM. The North Koreans have no experience with that, and it is not something you can just guess at. It is more engineering than science.

 

[moon]

Targeting an ICBM is one of the most complex parts of an ICBM. The North Koreans have no experience with that, and it is not something you can just guess at. It is more engineering than science.

It's amazing what satellite tech. can do- and if you haven't got many then friends can always loan you some.

Give up on Ukraine. It's Russia's backyard and NATO is denied entry.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1619090190257233920

Likely means that the Germans have almost no ammo....which is a common situation for the Germans in recent years.

 

[Walt]

Brazil's left-wing President, @LulaOficial, rejected a request from Germany to provide arms for German tanks in Ukraine.

There is something interesting going on here. Countries bought weapons from other countries, and did not think much of the re-export licenses they may one day need. It was assumed there would be no problem getting a re-export license because everyone would be on the same page.

Poland ran into this problem when trying to re-export German manufactured weapons, but Germany has now agreed. Switzerland will probably never agree to allow Spain to re-export to Ukraine. America is allowing re-export of just about anything to Ukraine.

The upshot, everyone is going to think longer about where they buy their weapons from. What good is buying weapons from Switzerland if they are going to block the use of them. This is going to be a good thing for American companies.