The Nuclear Threat
Antiwar.com's Scott Horton and former Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis warn about the grave danger of escalating the war in Ukraine
HD DownloadPresident Joe Biden has said that the world hasn't been this close to nuclear armageddon since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Vladimir Putin has issued grave threats and then backtracked. In late September, he announced in a televised address that he would use "all available means to protect Russia and our people."
"This is not a bluff," he said.
Then, in a speech on October 27, he said, "There is no point in [using nuclear weapons], neither political nor military." But The New York Times reported last week that Russian military leaders recently held meetings without Putin to discuss when and how to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Antiwar.com's Scott Horton, editor of the new book Hotter Than The Sun: Time To Abolish Nuclear Weapons, says that we should take seriously the possibility that the Ukraine conflict could escalate to a world-ending war. Putin and several of his top military leaders have threatened nuclear attacks multiple times since their February invasion of Ukraine, he points out.
Daniel Davis, a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, says he's concerned that "Biden's stated policy is to help Ukraine no matter how long it takes to win back their territory," something that Davis argued "can't be accomplished without throwing us in extraordinarily high nuclear risk." Davis says that despite its mistakes, Russia's military is quite capable, and he expects coming reinforcements to swing the war back in Moscow's favor come December.
Lt. Col. Davis also says that in the unlikely event that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy successfully drives Russia out of all parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, it would increase the chances that Russia uses nuclear weapons so that Putin can stay in power. The U.S. should supply just enough defensive weapons to keep Russia from totally dominating the country, he says, and then open "backdoor negotiations and diplomatic channels with both sides" in order to end the war as soon as possible.
Horton says that a diplomatic solution could have been reached back in April, pointing to an article co-written by Fiona Hill, a former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council, stating that "according to multiple former senior U.S. officials…in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement." According to a Ukrainian newspaper and a press release from the British government, then–Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Zelenskyy to avoid such negotiations with Russia.
In late September, Putin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian territories that border Russia, asserting that residents of the occupied territories would be Russian citizens forever and that any attacks against the annexed regions would be considered aggression against Russia itself. "To get [Putin] to back down" from these annexations, Horton argues, "is going to be virtually impossible now."
"Nobody in Ukraine and nobody in the West wants to allow Russia to keep one inch of territory that they've taken," says Lt. Col. Davis. But achieving that goal is not a realistic option. "To try and accomplish that objective is to almost certainly escalate the fight to a nuclear conflict…what is realistically possible is to freeze the war where it's at right now before Ukraine loses any more territory."
But what would be the moral hazard of backing down? Yale historian Timothy Snyder has written that negotiating with Putin will only "make future nuclear war much more likely" because the lesson for future dictators would be "that all they need is a nuclear weapon and some bluster to get what they want."
Lt. Col. Davis says "that already exists and that's part of the reality. Russia has nuclear weapons, North Korea has nuclear weapons, [and] you're not gonna roll that back."
"Russia has so badly harmed itself with all of the losses that it's sustained up to this point already, that it's gonna take decades to recover from that. A lot of these sanctions will never be rolled back, at least not in our lifetimes. And so the harm that the nation of Russia has suffered already and will continue to suffer is significant and hardly a blueprint for anyone else to wanna follow."
Horton says the war in Ukraine shows that deterrence is too risky of a strategy and should reinvigorate the push for disarmament. Deterrence "only works until it stops working," he argues. "And once it stops working, then that's it. It's called the Doomsday Machine because it's made to be used completely."
"I am afraid that it's going to come down to some absolutely horrible incident and somehow, hopefully, we get through and people will recognize we've got to scale back the other way."
Henry Kissinger has warned about the risk of escalation. "That should be all you need to know about how dangerous this is," says Horton. "And frankly…I wouldn't mind involving him in diplomacy right now. If we sent Henry Kissinger to meet with Sergei Lavrov in Geneva tomorrow, I would celebrate that as the greatest invention of peace in our time right now."
Produced by John Osterhoudt; edited by Osterhoudt and Zach Weissmueller; additional graphics by Regan Taylor.
Photos: Sergei Bobylev/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sipa USA/Newscom; Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Michael Brochstein/Polaris/Newscom; Rod Lamkey - CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Brett Raney; Valery Sharifulin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Abaca Press/Madiyevskyy Vyacheslav/Ukrinform/Newscom; Donat Sorokin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Russian Defence Ministry/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Russian Defence Ministry/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Tarasov Volodymyr/Ukrinform/ABACA/Newscom; Vadim Savitsky/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Russian President Press Office/ZUMA Press/Newscom; HO/Newscom; HO/Newscom; Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom; John Lamparski/ZUMA Press/Newscom; KCNA/UPI/Newscom; Russian Presidency/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Donat Sorokin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Russian Defense Ministry Press O/UPI/Newscom; News Licensing/MEGA/Newscom.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe ask the Ukranians how disarmament worked out for them.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks (ugv-13) online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link——————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning..,
HERE====)>https://www.pay.hiring9.com
No nukes, maaaaan. Peace is what the initiation of force is all about--when altruists do the initiating!
Russia vs. Ukraine
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)
So goes propaganda spewed by tyrannical governments. By and large, we Americans are a gullible lot. Too many of us swallow the swill that our increasingly tyrannical government spews at us.
Such is the case with the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. President Biden and his cabal would have us believe that anti-democratic Russia under a malevolent Dictator Putin invaded democratic Ukraine under a benevolent President Zelensky in order to annex its territory. The Russian invasion they characterize as entirely offensive.
The facts, however, speak differently. President Putin was elected by a majority of Russians who supported him at the time and still support him despite the deplorable performances of his intelligence service and military command. Zelensky was elected promising to promote good relations with his giant neighbor. He lied. Once elected, he did the opposite. He courted membership in the EU and even NATO. He closed all political opposition and any opposing media outlets. With his neo-Nazi allies, the Jewish Zelensky (Go figure!) became the dictator of which our media accuses Putin.
As for nuclear war, look to our military-industrial complex for creating the context. Who engineered the sabotage of the agreement between Putin and Zelensky last Spring?
https://www.nationonfire.com/russo-ukrainian-conflict/
Fuck off, racist asshole.
One look at your website reveals it to be racist garbage.
Is like people has to be knee jerk contrarians, so they love Putin because they think they're not supposed to. Putin is Trump's friend, so of course Putin is good guy. And so they get weird ass conspiracy shit that a Jewish guy runs a Nazi organization. Utter rubbish bullshit.
Cluestick: Everything on RT is fake news.
Weirdly, Putin didn’t invade Ukraine while his “friend” was president.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> ???.????????????.???
It is weird. I think part of this is also people really need black-and-white ethics. And so, if they don't want to be all in on Ukraine (a stance that has arguments for it) you have to become very pro-Russian (a stance I think is incredibly hard to argue for.)
Even the argument above is weird, right? His claim of virtue for Putin is he was democratically elected, let's ignore that Russia has pretty shady elections for now, and say that a democratic electorate can vote to do bad things. Nothing here really justifies the invasion at all. Even taking everything the writer says as true, it doesn't lead to the invasion making sense.
You don't have to like Vladimir Putin to see that he has a rationale here. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO and the U.S. have been conducting a steady and continued policy of encirclement of Russia. Mostly by means of covert operations of NGOs wholly funded by the West. As far back as 2003, the Russians made clear that Georgia and the Ukraine would be a provocation too far. In 2014, we nevertheless did it. And, no, I'm not going to buy the BS that it was some sort of organic internal revolt against oppression. We've got Victoria Nuland on tape planning out their government and the head of the CFR on television bragging about our taking the Ukraine from the Russians. And the Russians reacted pretty much as you'd expect. Now, the same crowd gets in and they're talking about adding the Ukraine to NATO.
I don't excuse Vladimir Putin's invasion. But only an idiot would think that it was unprovoked.
"Look what you made me do" is the last moral refuge of tyrants and monsters. It deserves no consideration as a reasonable or moral response to any kind of action. Invasion is not a defensive act. No amount of equivocating can make it so.
What part of "I don’t excuse Vladimir Putin’s invasion." do you have trouble understanding? Provoked does not mean justified.
But, whether justified or not, we're in the situation we're in. The rational question now is, what is the sane strategy going forward. We know provocation didn't pan out terribly well. And "downhill" from here means nukes going off. So, the question is whether there is a potential settlement that the Russians (by all accounts the war is generally popular in Russia) will agree to. And if Putin was reacting (even wildly inappropriately) to a provocation rather than engaging in unprovoked aggression, that suggests that a settlement is achievable.
What part of “I don’t excuse Vladimir Putin’s invasion.” do you have trouble understanding? Provoked does not mean justified.
I think the problem is all the text you wrote directly conflicting with your stated thesis.
Again, this is really simple. I'll try to keep my paragraphs short so you can follow them.
Provoked does not mean justified.
Attacking another country is wrong. That doesn't mean there wasn't provocation.
People predicted this for years. How do you think they were able to do that? Clairvoyance? Or a recognition that we were flirting with such an outcome?
'Provoked' does actually imply justification, just not the extent of what might be justified.
And the majority of what you actually say above reads like an extended justification.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here. However, for example, does 'encircling' North Korea 'provoke' them? Maybe so, but it 'provokes' them precisely because they think they deserve to rule other sovereign nations so as a 'justification' or a 'provocation' it's hardly anything more than the excuses of a tyrant.
If you see what I‘ve written as justifying Russia going to war against the Ukraine, that’s on you. All of it is accurate.
situation we’re in
"We" aren't in a situation. Russia and Ukraine are in a situation. The only ones who are in any position to work out a deal are the two of them, and it sure doesn't look like the Ukrainians are ready to settle for anything less than total victory right now so I strongly doubt that any deal will be made. Honestly, I can't blame them. If your land isn't worth dying for, you will be astounded at how quickly it ceases to be your land. It's not just some icy battlefield in Eastern Europe. To the people that live there, that's their home, and to expect them to ever stop shooting is pure folly. The United States spent 20 years stomping on Afghanistan and they never stopped shooting, for better or for worse. Conquering a country is hard.
Now, can you argue that the U.S. should stop selling Ukraine weapons? Maybe. There are arguments to that. You can be sure and shit that Iran and China aren't going to stop funneling weapons to Russia and you better believe both of them are watching closely what the world does in response to invasions because they'd both love to start a few of their own. You can also bet that anyone currently holding a nuclear weapon will never even think about giving it up after what happened to Ukraine though. M.A.D. isn't a great plan for survival, but it's better the devil you know.
“We” aren’t in a situation. Russia and Ukraine are in a situation
Hate to tell you this, but, like it or not, we've put ourselves in the situation. Because we're not "selling" the Ukrainians weapons. We're giving them weapons. To the tune of $80 billion. And we're involving ourselves in the Ukraine's war planning. By any rational standard since forever, that makes us a co-belligerent.
We had a POTUS who was trying to avoid wars but TDS-addled shit-piles made sure we got droolin' Joe.
What was your position on Trump again?
I could make a good case that executing most of the top democrats will save millions, if not billions, of lives world wide.
Your argument is that no nation can ever be independent. Ukraine has it's own language, even it's own variant of the Cyrillic alphabet. Their own culture. Then USSR essentially annexes them. But we have no USSR. So let Ukraine be free and independent.
No more genocide! This isn't about what Biden wants, this is about what Ukraine wants. Fuck Putin. Fuck Biden.
I just want to compare this post to your open borders beliefs and laugh at the irony.
I doubt anyone's "open borders" position includes their neighbors' tanks.
Self-determination wasn't the best policy post WWI it turned out. The one thing we can take away is if a people believe they are a country they will fight for it. 30 years of a nation for Ukraine created a nation which Putin didn't get at all. That said Russia prestige is on the line..they are not going to lose this one unless they have a revolution. Best thing is to find a face saving way out for both sides or this could become a stalemate with trenches like WWI and go for years (which it probably will). Don't think either side will use nukes (live one from russia and dirty bombs from ukraine). No one wants to go there.
Bigger problem is the home front. From reading Twitter it looks like we are not a country anymore...just factions who hate each other.
Judging from the way Putin treated Pussy Riot and continues to treat Russian dissenters, Vladamir Putin would be provoked by mere cross words from disarmed civilians.
Fuck Vladamir Putin!
He might be a member of the "Gay Nazi's for Christ"?
The shill is standard Yourpean racial collectivist. Getting them to understand THAT is like explaining water to a fish, or explaining that altruism is only a value if death is the standard. Try it and see for self.
Here's your beloved Putin and one of his Russian Orthodox Church shill!
Vladimir Putin’s Hands Are Turning ‘Black’ Following Reports The Russian Leader Is Suffering From Parkinson’s Disease & Cancer ?
https://radaronline.com/p/vladimir-putin-hands-black-reports-suffering-parkinsons-disease-cancer/
Russian priest who advised women to bear more children and send them to war dies in Ukraine ?
SUNDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2022, 23:10
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/11/6/7375238/
Their Goddamn God and supposed superior Caucasian genes can't save them now! And once cancer hits a gland, especially a lymph gland near the pancreas or prostate, Putin's time on the Big Blue Marble is up!
Fuck Off, Ku Klux Krud!
We’ll see. And why are you assuming this is a good thing? No one is close to certain who succeeds Putin as the next Czar.
Why would you assume they’re going to be better?
Same people thought Biden would be better than trump.
That isn't me. I can walk and chew gum at the same time and I can hate Biden and Putin and Trump at the same time too.
Putin getting a carcinogenic bump-off would mean a chance at the Russian people rising up and moving in to claim freedom andxlimited government that they have never had for Centuries.
And if Patriarch Kirill and his Church underlings got a similar send-off or a Papal-style abuse scandal, maybe that will also help free the Russian people in mind as well as body and wealth.
But it's gotta start somewhere and these stories are an excellent start! 🙂
Yourupeans cannot conceive of anything that is not socialist. They are forever trapped inside a Venn diagram circle containing nationalsocialsm and KGB socialism. At the Nuremberg trials none of the krauts or russkies understood the concept of "aggressive war" except to claim it was something "the" other team did.
Putin was "elected" in the same sense Hitler was "elected" dictator-for-life. Soviet simply means KGB now.
The only way this ends somewhat peacefully is for Russians to overthrow Putin. Anything less is a compromise for future nuclear bullies to try their hand at it, also.
Or Putin can die from natural causes. There are so many repeated claims of ill-health that his "natural" death seems just as likely to me.
Putin cannot be trusted. Any negotiated "peace" will be no such thing. Putin won't back down, and no matter how well Ukraine is doing right now, Russia is a lot bigger with a lot more resources, Ukraine's hand in Uncle Sam's pocket may be coming to an end soon, General Winter is going to pause things just as soon, and Ukraine is unlikely to win in the long run.
My expert informed prediction is that Ukraine hangs on for a while, and if Putin dies soon enough, the new Russian leaderships backs down slowly enough for some kind of negotiated stalemate until a new Putin arises and starts a fresh round of breaking promises.
I don't think nuclear war is likely; even mad dictators with brain tumors rely on generals, and those generals are much more interested in maintaining their cushy corrupt life in a small pond than risking everything for little personal gain.
" General Winter is going to pause things just as soon"
Again with the foolishness. Without reliable energy supply to keep Ukrainian homes warm, General Winter is about to mount a vicious offensive.
Winter is very unlikely to stop the fighting. In Ukraine the lows in winter tend towards -5'C (-1,537'F or something in the most stupid temperature measurement system). It's spring when all that snow melts and turns the countryside to mush that slows things down, not winter.
Meanwhile we've seen how well Russian troops are equipped - can't say it'll be much fun for them in summer uniforms stuffed with newspaper out in the field.
Yes. Your fellow travelers have done a wonderful job on the energy front. A lot of people are going to die here, and abroad, thanks to the democrats you worship.
This whole war is on you. Putin never would have dared do this without a Biden’s foolish blundering. You have an ocean of blood on your hands.
It seems, in your partisan enthusiasm, you overestimate Biden's influence on the rest of the world. His stature as a world leader, indeed a national leader, was never as high as you make it out to be.
See the article on Putin above. Oh! Happy Day! 🙂
I don't think the people will. Russian history and all that. A thousand years of serfdom is not easily thrown off.
As with most power turnovers, it's going to happen via the power in charge getting sick and tired of putin. We're already seeing signs of that. The oligarchy is not happy. Only mud in the mix is how much dirt the ex-KGB Putin has on them.
It's Russia though. If history shows us anything it's that anyone willing to overthrow Putin will actually be worse than him.
Metternich's old adage always applies here--"Russia is never as strong as it looks. Russia is never as weak as it looks."
That's getting to be more and more likely at this point, with how the war is going.
I seriously doubt that Putin would resort to using nukes, short of some extremely desperate gambit. He doesn't share our MAD deterrence policy at this stage, but he's not an insane person. He made a bad choice to invade Ukraine on the assumption they'd roll over like what happened in Crimea, and didn't expect that NATO would start shipping Stingers and Javelins to counter Russian armor and air attack (not to mention that we almost certainly have special forces and CIA assets there now advising the military and providing cyberwarfare capabilities).
He's stuck in a sunk-cost fallacy at this point--he can't pull out or he's likely dead within a year, anyway, and the longer he stays in without actual progress, the more the Russian people and its institutions turn against him. Ultimately, he's going to break the back of his own military by continuing on this path, and it could be decades before they're taken seriously as even a regional power, as opposed to being a nuclear-armed local shithole like Pakistan.
Not going to happen.
What makes anyone think they can rely on Putin's promises? How do you negotiate with someone who has broken all previous promises?
The parallels with Hitler are clear, the only difference being the threats of first-strike nuclear weapons. Hitler and Putin were both elected, ha ha, and are popular, ha ha, for their promises of expansion. Both invasions, Poland in 1939 and Ukraine in 2022, followed several illegal annexations.
Whatever the US does or does not do, Putin is still untrustworthy. Trying to make deals based on Putin's promises, or negotiating with Putin, is a fool's game. Make decisions regardless of Putin. Ignore his promises and threats; they are unreliable.
The parallels with Hitler are clear, the only difference being the threats of first-strike nuclear weapons.
There are parallels, sure. But there are some major differences. The biggest being equipment and tactics. Germans had the best of both. Russia not so much. That meant Germany could steamroll over most of Europe while Russia can barely hold territory.
" Germans had the best of both. "
The German equipment was suited to the relatively short distances of Europe. It proved inadequate to the vast distances of Russia. A mechanized army needs fuel, and a fuel tank is only capable of holding a limited amount of fuel. That wasn't a problem in Poland or France, but Russia was a different scale. The situation for Germany was so desperate that transport planes were so loaded with fuel that there wasn't room to accommodate adequate winter clothing for the troops.
"Russia can barely hold territory."
Again the scale, man, the scale. Russia had so much territory that they didn't need to hold it. Scorched earth is what the called it. Burning everything of value and leaving their enemy to occupy the resulting wasteland. Germany, on the other hand, needed every scrap of material they could lay their hands on.
I think you're missing my point.
Germany had state-of-the-art weapons and tactics for that time and used them well (until they were defeated by the Russian winter).
Russia is using outdated weapons and lousy tactics against state-of-the art technology, and they're getting their butts kicked.
"(until they were defeated by the Russian winter)."
Maybe it's quibbling but I think it was Russian distances and overtaxed German supply lines that spoiled their blitzkrieg, rather than winter and cold temperatures.
"Russia is using outdated weapons and lousy tactics against state-of-the art technology, and they’re getting their butts kicked."
Possibly. If it comes down to a worst case scenario, war of attrition, Russia has all the advantages.
If it comes down to a worst case scenario, war of attrition, Russia has all the advantages.
I don’t think so. If you mean strictly manpower then yes. They have more bodies. But technologically that’s not the case. They don’t have factories churning out new tanks and other heavy equipment. Rather they’re dusting off obsolete machines and sending them to war. Meanwhile Ukraine is being given state-of-the-art weaponry produced around the world while Russia is buying suicide drones from Iran. Because of that I think Russia will run out of tanks before Ukraine runs out of missiles.
"They don’t have factories churning out new tanks and other heavy equipment. "
Neither does the Ukraine. If my sense of the situation is correct, Ukraine will soon be hard pressed to provide heat and light to these factories. The US does have this capability, of course, but that could all change tomorrow with the reshuffle of political players in Washington. And any number of unforeseen events that can reliably crop up in times of war.
Neither does the Ukraine.
I never said they did. I'm saying that Ukraine is being supplied with weapons that Russia can't defend itself from. This is a new kind of warfare. Simply rolling tanks into the downtown doesn't work anymore because those expensive and irreplaceable machines are being taken out by infantrymen using comparatively cheap missiles. Russia sending these tank columns to their deaths is similar to men going over the top in WWI only to be mowed down by machine guns. War has changed, and Russia hasn't kept up.
"Russia sending these tank columns to their deaths is similar to men going over the top in WWI only to be mowed down by machine guns. War has changed, and Russia hasn’t kept up."
I was struck by the similarities with WWI to the current conflict. Unlike previous wars, in WWI, artillery was responsible for the greatest number of casualties, and relatively few died going over the top charging machine guns and barbed wire trenches.
The Jerries had shaped-charge Panzerfausts way better than US bazookas or those limey springshot contraptions. Kids popped out from behind a rock and took out Allied tanks from 30 yards away in 1945. These newfangled versions increase the range by at least an order of magnitude. Those rectangular packets crusted over on today's tanks are countermeasures with a poor track record.
Ukraine has captured more tanks from the Russians then they started the war with, and more than the various NATO powers have gifted them. Russia is their #1 supplier of heavy equipment.
Germany did NOT have a state-of-the-art army. It had only 10 of it's 190 divisions armoured or mechanised. The rest depended on horse and trains exactly the same as in WW1 and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.
Even after looting everything that was motorised from western Europe in 1940 they still were 95% horse drawn and that was what invaded the USSR in 1941.
By comparison both the UK and France were significantly more mechanised - the British had no horses left in the army except for ceremonial purposes in 1939.
"Germany did NOT have a state-of-the-art army."
They had the first rockets and first jet fighters. The Messerschmidt jet fighters were produced in small numbers at the end of the war. The fuel situation was so desperate that they had to be towed out from the hangars by cows.
They had rocket powered interceptors that killed more Luftwaffe pilots than they killed allied aircrew. And their jets were in service 2 months before the British jets and had engines that were utter rubbish compared to the British jet engines. Again not state of the art.
The rocket program was the most advanced. Both the Russians and the Americans kickstarted their space programs with Shanghaied Nazi engineers. Operation Paperclip was what the Americans called it.
They had a rocket program that cost their more of their economy than the Manhatten project cost the US which managed IN TOTAL over 12 months to send less explosives to the UK, France and Belgium than the USAAF and RAF were dropping on Germany EVERY DAY.
"They had a rocket program that cost their more of their economy than the Manhatten project cost the US"
State of the art is expensive.
That and culinary purposes...
I'm not "missing your point", I'm stating that your point is out and out incorrect.
Germany's weapons were not "state of the art", they were on a parr with those in service with the UK and France. The biggest lesson they took from the invasion of Poland was an urgent need to change the standard army horseshoe.
Wehraboos and their "teh most advanced technologys" claims need to be slapped any time they appear.
Germany's weapons were in some cases the most advanced in the world. V2 rockets and jet fighters, for example. They lagged in cryptography, radar and some other areas, but it wasn't poor or old fashioned weaponry that led to their defeat. The Russians arguably produced a slightly better tank than the Germans did, but it wasn't the qualitative edge that mattered. It was the quantitative difference. Right from the start the Germans were short of material and manpower.
Using horses was the smart thing to do. Gasoline was extremely limited and had to be conserved. The world's first fighter jets had to be towed out to the runways by cows, fuel was so precious. How many horses and cows were employed in the Manhattan Project? Zero is my guess.
All good points. It's also noteworthy that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy also drove out their top nuclear physicists and scientists in general.
It is one of the supreme ironies of history that if Nazism wasn't Antisemitic, Germany probably would rule a big chunk of the world up to today. 🙂
Nationalsocialism, like communism, is altruistic. Nazi dogma viewed Jews as innately selfish Jesus-killers. One advantage to this mystical altruist de-personing was choosing a weak enemy. The Reich looted Jewish banks and industry through Aryanization then made Hebrew braceros of the ones unable to flee. The US used enlisted Axis prisoners as farmhands replacing conscripts "over there." But they ate well and got paid. Jews were worked to death, shot or gassed. The 1927 "King of Kings," featuring Ayn Rand and Frank, displays this bias.
IIRC, some Geman POWs in the States did stuff like laying roofing tiles in the shape of Hakenkruetzes ("Twisted Crosses" a.k.a. Swastikas.) One of the many pitfalls of conscription.
I never saw that movie, so I'll have to see what you're referring to...if that's possible.
Reread my comment and pay attention to verb tenses.
"while Russia can barely hold territory."
Russia or pro-Russian militias have held Crimea and a good part of the Donbas for almost a decade, and Ukraine has been reduced to impotently shelling its cities. I doubt that Russians are planning on holding much more than they had at the outset of the 'special military operations.' They did make a feint into the outskirts of Kiev at the start, but that was probably more to test the resolve of the Ukrainian people than a sincere effort to conquer and hold territory.
Everything I've read says Russia is being pushed out of Donbas and Crimea. Momentum is not on their side.
"Everything I’ve read says Russia is being pushed out of Donbas and Crimea."
I honestly don't know the situation on the ground. But time is on the side of the larger force, Russia, and a cold winter will hurt Ukraine more than Russia.
Ukrainian forces are better equipped against the cold than the mobiks of the Russian Army.
It's the civilians I'm worried about.
Also Russian morale is in the toilet while Ukrainians are just getting started.
Japanese morale was hardly decisive in August 1945.
The militias got smashed in 2014. It was only intervention by Russian regulars that saved them. Since then Ukraine gradually has improved it's training and tactics to the point where 2021 was looking very bad for the militias, far from a stalemate they were being slapped about all over the front - hence the need in 2022 to invade and save them.
One of things that this invasion has bought to the forefront is that "Russian speaking" is very definitely not the same as "wanting to be part of Russia".
According to wikipedia almost 2 million refugees fled the Donbas. Fled to Russia. The direction refugees choose when they flee tells us a lot about the conflict and the participants. Other refugees fled toward western Ukraine, so divided loyalties, evidently.
Yes it says that they were unable to cross the front lines. You will note that in the current engagement 98% of refugees went... to anywhere but Russia. And that's despite the fact that much of the fighting has been over areas where Russian is the predominant language. Because no-one goes to Russia if they have any choice in the matter.
"And that’s despite the fact that much of the fighting has been over areas where Russian is the predominant language."
As far as I know, the languages are a lot closer than either the Russians or the Ukrainians are willing to let on. That's nationalism for you.
Russian and Ukrainian are different in a very important way that reveals their history. Ukrainian loanwords are mostly Western facing - Latin, Polish, Germanic. Russian loanwords are Eastern facing - Turkic and Mongol
"that reveals their history."
It wasn't their history I was concerned about, but their mutual intelligibility. The languages may have different loan words. Their orthography differs too. The language of Belarus is much the same as I understand. If Russians and Ukrainians are in a friendly mood, they understand each other. If not, they demand an interpreter. That's nationalism for you.
2 million was the number of Ukrainians taken by Putineers into slavery and dispersed throughout Russia. Are you sure your numbers aren't getting garbled?
Get it right, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
Refugees are people fleeing conflict for their safety. Some fled to Russia. Something like 2 million of them if memory serves.
And the Putineers nabbed them up for slave labor.
I'm sure their stories were widely published throughout Russia for their propaganda value. Generally speaking their stories of refugee hardships, courage, and outrage are true, perhaps not the whole truth, but true in any event. I think it's called White Propaganda. Black propaganda is outright scurrilous lies. Your slave camp story has the smell of black propaganda about it.
Quit with the German superiority crap. All they have shown is they are good at starting wars but can't finish them. Obviously not warriors who think in the long term. Typical German arrogance. Now has spread to Russian thinking.
Volkswagen or Ford?
BMW or Chevy?
Audi or GMC?
Some German arrogance is well earned.
Yeah, but if you can only produce one Volkswagen for every two Fords, half a BMW for every 1.5 Chevys, or a quarter of an Audi for every GMC, it really doesn't matter how state-of-the-art your engineering is. Sometimes, quantity is more important than quality.
There's also something to be said about many of those American companies being more innovative in the history of cars. Ford in particular. Germany with cars is good at iteration, less so at innovation. Seems to be a general issue with Europe though. It's also possibly why they have no major tech companies, with Spotify being their largest web-tech company.
*Angry Bird glare*
Admittedly, I'm doing a bit of a elusive move by claiming "web tech", but even in general tech Europe still is not super dominant and mostly have legacy hardware industries. Scandanavia also dominates this, leaving the EU with 5, if I'm counting right.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/largest-tech-companies-by-market-cap/
This is actually a big question in the tech industry. Europe keeps trying to invest in this stuff and hasn't had that much luck. It's a big question as to why, as there are smart people there, they're rich countries, they want to invest. Who knows? My guess is something to do with culture. Europe is ossified in a way that the US is not yet.
Look to what laws the E.U. passes in regards to how those platforms must operate if you're curious about why it's a non-starter in the E.U.
They want to regulate it, but they have no idea how any of that shit works.
"Look to what laws the E.U. passes in regards to how those platforms must operate"
Or what laws they don't pass. Europeans aren't nearly so keen on imposing intellectual property protections as the Americans are, or protecting social media giants from liability, or using the courts to punish competitors for rounded corners on their smart phones and the like.
The EU is highly risk and change aversive. Tech changes stuff and has risk associated with it.
The only EU based tech companies worth mentioning are Vodafone and SAP. Everything else gets driven offshore because of the societal attitude reinforced with government regulation.
Who knows? My guess is something to do with culture. Europe is ossified in a way that the US is not yet.
I think it's backwards. *grabs trusty old axe and grindstone* The US, thanks to an unnamed federal pseudo-amendment, ossified as a cultural(ly idiotic socialist) monolith while the EU was still ossified as an effective federated cultural republic. See also: TikTok, Wechat, Huawei, Alibaba...
"It’s also possibly why they have no major tech companies"
I don't think it's for a lack of innovation. Erlang came from the Danish telecom, Tetris came from a Soviet research institute, Linux from a Finnish university, and WWW from CERN. None would qualify in the US as tech firms.
Ah, but the reason you would need two Fords in the first place is for when one is Found On Road Dead or Fixed Or Repaired Daily. 🙂
Not to shill for German ideologies at all, but the technology of the VW Bug was and is amazing!
John Muir literally wrote the book on VW Bugs called: How To Keep Your Volkswagen Alive: A Manual of Step-By-Step Procedures for the Compleat Idiot.
Repair in many instances only takes a screwdriver, along with a few other easily-available tools and devices, like maybe a chain, winch, and a strong-limbed shade tree for full-engine treatment. How many autos are like that any more?
Strange but true: The abbreviation VW is actually longer than the original Volkswagen.
The DKW is also longer than Dampf Kraft Wagen.
My German is non existent. Are there any German abbreviations which are shorter than the original long forms?
"Nazi Billionaires" tells how the VW plant was built before converting to military bucket-cars and other vehicles. Only a few bugs were built in WW2, and those went to Nazi chooms. Actual Beetle production was really a peacetime enterprise run by a "former" nationalsocialist.
And always remember: As Oz never did give nothing to TheTin Man..." the "former" Nazis didn't produce anything that Free-Marketeers couldn't and better and cheaper.
"What makes anyone think they can rely on Putin’s promises? "
Building trust is what they call it, I think. Start with something small where the stakes are low, like negotiating the release of the American basketball player, and work your way up from there.
"Ignore his promises and threats; they are unreliable."
Rely on this: people are being killed every day in Ukraine. Lives are disrupted, property damaged. Clinging to the hope that Putin will suddenly die and all this will go away is vain and foolish.
The only thing the US can negotiate with Russia is sanctions not Ukraine. And I can't imagine a more inappropriate time for us to start that topic with Russia
During the cold war, prisoner exchanges were not all that uncommon. It was a low stakes trust building exercise. They can be rather bizarre. One Israeli soldier was exchanged for the release of a thousand Palestinian prisoners, if I recall correctly. And these exercises don't always lead to better relationships. When Trump visited North Korea, he cancelled joint US/South Korean military exercises. But nothing came of it in the end. Removing the economic sanctions doesn't fall into the low stakes category. Similarly with Iran, prisoner exchanges and such measures will come before the removal of economic sanctions, release of funds, and deals on nuclear proliferation.
The parallels with Hitler are clear,
I'd say the parallels to Europe 1914 are probably clearer. Like the Kaiser, we're issuing an "ally" (even though, in this case, unlike that, no actual alliance treaty exists) a blank check to escalate a dispute beyond any rational extent of our interests. That one ended with a bloodbath.
Another parallel with WWI is tactics. That war was a slaughter in part because both sides were using outdated tactics against new weapons. Charging machineguns didn't work well.
Meanwhile in Ukraine, Russia is using outdated tactics against new weapons. Sending columns of tanks into missile ambushes results in a lot of dead tank crews without gaining territory.
Also internet connected army versus cold war tank columns. People be hating Musk, but he's one of the heroes in this war. Easy to target the tank columns when you have real time GPS data on their movement on your phone.
I like Musk. He makes liberals piss their pants.
Musk's midterm message: Twitter CEO urges Americans to vote Republican to 'curb the worst excesses' of the Democrats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11399365/Elon-Musk-recommends-voting-Republicans-U-S-midterm-elections.html
The rending of clothing and gnashing of teeth is delicious!
Musk's proposed peace plan was about as close as anything I've seen to a rational settlement. He was called a Putin apologist for it. Even though he's financing the Ukrainian communications system. That alone should tell you something.
Yeah. He's not ideological in the way that the Fascist/Nazi/Communist movements of post-WW1 were. Not as best as I can tell at least.
From what I can tell he's nostalgic for the USSR.
He's revanchist more than ideological.
>>tactical nuclear weapons
oxymoron.
Not totally. It was a real think at one time. Not the most brilliant idea, but also not an oxymoron. Low level nuke the area and still be able to move your troops in. Basically dimwitted generals and the scientists/engineers greedy for their funding.
Also, look up "Davey Crockett".
It still is a thing and Russia considers it viable. Basically it's a lower yield nuke used on a battlefield not a city
Two can play. See "discriminate weapons" by Sam Cohen. Ukraine with one neutron bomb on those 6 reactors in occupied territory when the wind is just right can make farmland useless for decades in a large area around Moscow and interrupt fishing in the Azov.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 16 and 20 kilotons respectively. There are tactical nukes with a yield less than one megaton. The W-54 tactical nuke had a minimum yield of 10 tons. By comparison the conventional MOAB is 11 tons. So they do exist.
The real question is are Russia's nukes in any better shape than the rest of their military?
Given all the threats from Putin, why haven't they used one already?
Given all the threats from Putin, why haven’t they used one already?
Because he knows that would force our hand. If he can get away with using a nuke, then why can’t the lunatic in North Korea? MAAD is still a thing.
I don't know how many times this has to be said: the US cannot broker a "solution" to Putin's totally unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, and we should not try. If Putin or his military are crazy enough to start a nuclear war, then there will be a nuclear war. Brinksmanship is not new to the world and the stakes now are about the same as they were back in 1962. Selling weapons to Ukraine for its legitimate self-defense is not intrinsically more (or less) dangerous than trying to arrange diplomatic negotiations. Russia and Ukraine are quite capable of arranging their own meetings if they think it's a good idea.
"Selling weapons to Ukraine for its legitimate self-defense is not intrinsically more (or less) dangerous than trying to arrange diplomatic negotiations."
Weapons sales are a lot more profitable than peace negotiations. Same can be said of sales of American gas to Europe.
"Russia and Ukraine are quite capable of arranging their own meetings if they think it’s a good idea."
Does America think it's a good idea? Prolonging the conflict plays into American hands, weakening Russia and Europe, fostering dependency in the Ukraine, enriching American weapons and fossil fuel companies. Meanwhile the lives of billions around the world are put at risk.
Although I would never discount the role that warhawk politicians or arms dealers play in the fomenting of war, that is not what is happening here. Unless you have significant, objective evidence that someone lured Putin into invading Ukraine, you're simply spouting pacifist nonsense unconnected to anything in the real world. Only a paranoid or a megalomaniac could see a threat from Ukraine to Russian security or sovereignty at any time in the last twenty years. On the other hand, the United States should have pulled out of NATO long ago and let Europe take care of its own security needs.
"Only a paranoid or a megalomaniac could see a threat from Ukraine to Russian security or sovereignty at any time in the last twenty years. "
History goes back a lot further than 20 years. Both Hitler and Napoleon saw Ukraine as a Russian soft spot, and Russians are well aware of what happened, even though it all took place in previous centuries.
"Unless you have significant, objective evidence that someone lured Putin into invading Ukraine"
I never meant to imply that American weapons makers and fossil fuel companies lured Putin into invading. Just that they and their neocon friends are happy to exploit the current situation for their own benefit. There's a lot of speculation that America or her proxies were behind the sabotage/accidents recently of the Russian pipelines. That's not the actions of someone who's keen on pursuing a peaceful solution.
The speculation is by gullible morons. The US (or UK or whomever) could have sabotaged the gas pipes - but if they were caught then the cost is very high. Total destruction of trust with Germany.
For Russia the cost is basically zero as they've burned any trust they had left.
"The speculation is by gullible morons. "
Maybe some day we'll see who was behind the sabotage, or responsible for the accident.
That old codger's still alive?
He is. He's 99 years-old. He was born in the Weimar Republic.
It's pathetic to watch a bunch of self-professed libertarians clamor to risk nuclear Armageddon over the disposition of the Donbas. And hearing so many insist, echoing George W. Bush, that the only acceptable settlement is "regime change".
Plus 1000000000000
So, shorter version, how dare the United States go against Russia on any topic as long as they threaten the planet with nuclear reprisal like they've been doing since they developed nuclear weapons in the first place.
Weird that we're all still here, since obviously the USSR destroyed the planet back in the 70's. Obviously we should have surrendered during the JFK administration since really Russia was just annexing us which is totally fine.
I fully admit it's none of our business who Russia decides to invade if we don't have a treaty with them, such as Ukraine, but at the same time pretending Russia are just minding their own business and NATO is forcing their hand is patent bullshit straight out of PRAVDA.
Pravda Social.
Yay! You win the Internet for the Day! 🙂
Putin's the one who brought nuclear arms to the twble. Libertarians can't get dog catchers or water commissioners elected, so don't put that off on us.
And Libertarians are ultimately supposed to be about "regime change" for the whole world. A world of societies that respect Life, Liberty, Property, and The Pursuit of Happiness is the ultimate security blanket.
Not me. Both are more alike than different. I am in favor of selling weapons on a cash and carry basis, like America always did before the middle of WW1. But wars between Yourupeans are evolution in action, better to watch from afar.
One can defend the Individual Right of Ukrainians to self-defense without upholding any Government. I've said throughout this whole War that if Zelenskyy recalls all the firearms he gave away after this is all over, then he is morally no different than Putin.
Any nuclear explosion creates radiation, heat, and blast effects that will result in many quick fatalities. Direct radiation is the most immediate effect of the detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is produced by the nuclear reactions inside the bomb and comes mainly in the form of gamma rays and neutrons.
Regards: beyblade
OUR DEALS ARE AMAZING!
DON'T FORGET TO SHOP FOR CHRISTMAS!
NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION!
GOOD TILL 12 O"CLOCK MIDNIGHT ON BLACK FRIDAY THE PRICES WE"VE GOT ON DEMON CORES ARE HOT! HOT! HOT!
GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL! 😉
Then we can all be incredible hulks!
.MAD Magazine pointed out that this would come in handy on non-world-saving endeavors like being a short-order cook;
"Hulk! We need more mashed potatoes!"
"HULK MASH!"
*Crushes big burlap sack of Idaho potatoes.*
🙂
Freezing the conflict with new lines is nothing but postponing the war to a time when it's more convenient for Putin to start round 3. This war ain't going to end until either:
Ukrainians give up their identity as Ukrainians or
Russians give up their dreams of expanding to Russian Empire.
Oh - and neither of those can be negotiated away.
But they can be killed away.
The Soviets did eventually leave Afghanistan...and so did the Americans.
Neither were militarily defeated, were they?
Not according to surrenderist dogma. These States can surrender to communism as suggested by George Kennan. But Russia or Red China are immutable except they can expand into someone else's territory. Ask any communist agent.
Putin's war was to liberate the the Donbas region where Ukraine has reportedly killed 17,000 people. Donbas was a part of Russia until Hitler and Stalin redrew the maps. To characterize that as a dream of expanding the Russian empire is a tad hyperbolic. The deal was on the table. Give up Donbas, no war. After the invasion it was reported that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to a negotiated settlement but the Biden regime is determined to keep this war going for as long as possible and spooked the deal. How many have died in Ukraine since then? Putin's got blood on his hands but there are no good guys here. This is a border dispute in the most corrupt country in the world and the US has no interest there.
Hitler redrew the territory of a part of the Soviet Union? When?
As for the 17k figure, that includes soldiers on both sides fighting in the conflict. It isn't civilian deaths caused by Ukraine.
The fall of the USSR is the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century. Putin's words not mine.
The 20th century was full of end of empires. The Brits have accepted theirs. The Russian elites haven't x Gorbachev.
And Donbas is only the excuse not the objective. Putin has said Ukraine isn't real and Ukrainians are really Russian. Any Ukrainian who identify as Ukrainian is antiRussian and antiRussian equals Nazi.
… the US has no interest there.
The Biden family does.
Such as?
And Putin and Patriarch Kirill are both firm believers that this cause is blessed by God. There is no rational arguments with these Divine-Right-Of Kings bastards!
This article starts with the premise of taking Biden literally, that he meant driving Russia out of every last square inch of Ukraine.
To be fair, it starts with the premise that Putin is serious about starting a nuclear war. There is also a more subtle premise that negations are always preferable to war no matter how blatant the violation by one of the parties in that war, and that negotiations might somehow be preferable - either in escalation of risk to the US, or in the likelihood of achieving peace - to gradually defeating the invaders militarily. Both are highly suspect.
Here's the thing, though, you can't logically make a moral case for the independence of the Ukraine from Russia that doesn't equally apply to independence of the Donbas or the Crimea from the Ukraine. In that regard, whatever you think Russian aggression, the Russians have a point there. And once you've accepted that, you're 75% of the way to a negotiated settlement.
After the Cold War, Russia signed an agreement guaranteeing the borders of Ukraine as they existed then. Which included the Donbas and Crimea. It is Russia that repeatedly broken that freely entered into agreement.
In 1991 every region of Ukraine voted to leave the Soviet Union and become part of an independent Ukraine. Majorities in every region. Including Donbas and Crimea.
It entered into a treaty with an allied government that was replaced in a coup d'etat.
And what, you're saying one man one vote one time is the appropriate standard?
It was a treaty entered into by a Ukrainian government who were highly reluctant to give up their nuclear weapons as they could already see how things could go in the future. They were only convinced by the promise of guaranteed borders. A guarantee that Putin crapped all over.
If Ukraine isn't in NATO at the end of this then they're about 99.99% likely to be pursuing their own nuclear weapons program.
For lonley guys to find casual chat contacts Shemale Marseille
Funny, Patriarch Kirill claims that Putin invaded Ukraine over the likes of Shemale Marseille and other LGBTQ+s. 🙂
Deterrence "only works until it stops working," he argues. "And once it stops working, then that's it. It's called the Doomsday Machine because it's made to be used completely."
The same is true for disarmament. It only works until it stops working (when some rogue nation decides they want to have nuclear weapons anyway). Then you either let them hold all the cards, or you are back to a policy of deterrence.
Rest in peace, Justin Raimondo. You were a good man.
Huh, I didn't even know he was sick.
No obituary here at Reason.
That's because it was over three years ago.
https://reason.com/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-won-the-democratic-debate-by-fudging-her-record/
Yeah, a one sentence mention that "OBTW, Raimondo died" in the Roundup isn't an obit by any measure.
He described himself as a conservative-paleo-libertarian. If that's not sick, I don't know what is!!!
I was just thinking how nice it was to read an intelligent and cogent comment section devoid of Trump pukes, but here you are. A fucking cancer.
Don't get me killed, new guy.
Poor Shrike.
Whoever the Trumpanzee is, I muted it long ago.
100%. Miss that guy everyday
But he was Gay, so he’s burning in Hell too, right, ML? ?
Actually surprised to see something like an anti war article here at Koch News. Hate to be the guy to point this out but under the Biden regime we may have more to worry about than Russia. After decades of poking the bear, the Neocons are threatening war with China over Taiwan. Biden has said the quiet part out loud repeatedly while his handlers try to walk it back but the Chinese seem to be taking him at his word. If it's going to be Allies v. Axis in a world war we'll be facing both and our back up will be our NATO buddies all of which are currently commiting economic suicide.
Another person that can't bring themselves to plainly state that China and Russia want to expand their empire by invading other countries and that we are in their way.
Just come out and say China and Russia deserve whatever nations they can take by force; it would at least be honest.
MAD kept the planet relatively war free for almost a hundred years, and it seems probable China and Russia are probing the United States to see what we would actually do if they invaded with just the tip. If the answer is 'nothing' expect to be fully fucked.
The real danger is letting a country get away with nuclear blackmail. It will just encourages it to do it again and well as encourage other aggressive countries (looking at Iran mostly) to pursue nuclear weapons because they see it means they can do what they want.
The toothpaste is out of the tube on that one and has been for a long time. We have relied on mutually assured destruction and global trade for the survival of the species.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while:
Wouldn’t it be great if a swarm of Nanobots could fly surruptitiously into the silos of Putin’s Russia, Red China, Pakistan, India, or a nuke-armed Iran or North Korea, then sabotage, dismantle and quietly destroy every component of the ICBMs?
The Nanobots could short out the servomechanisms for the fins and the fuel valves on the rockets…
They could act like dust on the PC boards and microchips of the homing systems, even infiltrate the ground guidance computers…
A dedicated mini-swarm of Graphite Nanobots could surround the nuclear core of the warhead so that the Neutrons can’t start flying to cause the chain reaction that heats up the Hydrogen fusion…
In other words, every component of the ICBM rendered completely useless!
And why confine it to nuclear power? The Israelis have wanted to devise Nanobots the size of a dragonfly that could inject deadly poison into a terrorist while sparing all civilians around him! Yessss!!!
Other Nanobots could do things like fly into primers of shells or bullets and render them unfireable! Fly and wrap a wire around a grenade pin to render it inactive! Swarm in droves into cannon barrels and magnetize together to block the barrel!
Whoever can pull this off and not let the technology fall into enemy hands would take the “Mutually” and “Assured” out of “Mutually Assured Destruction” and would be the new Global Superpower presiding over a new era of Peace and Freedom for Humanity!
Something to think about!
"Something to think about!"
Why not design your own weapons to be completely immune from the doings of these nanobots, and sell the nanobots, with a hefty markup, on the open market, to enemies and friends alike.
Again, it would have to be done without enemies having access or there is no warfare advantage.
And it would take a level of human development far beyond the Rickshaws you want to force upon us, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
"...what is realistically possible is to freeze the war where it's at right now before Ukraine loses any more territory."
What is this early March? The Russians have been steadily losing territory since the Summer. And based on what we've seen so far, late July was their high point.
Russia seems to think they can Zerg rush with badly trained conscripts and take all that land back. Recent attempts have cost them 100's of dead conscripts per day, but hey their families get a discount on a Lada if their child dies in the "special military operation" so win-win.
Scott Horton, editor of the new book Hotter Than The Sun: Time To Abolish Nuclear Weapons, says that we should take seriously the possibility that the Ukraine conflict could escalate to a world-ending war.
What a coincidence, apocalyptic statements just when he has a new book to promote.
..."If we sent Henry Kissinger to meet with Sergei Lavrov in Geneva tomorrow, I would celebrate that as the greatest invention of peace in our time right now."
Aside from the fact that Neville Chamberlain's Peace in Our Time lasted 11 months and a day, ask the Vietnamese about Kissinger.
I've made $84,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I do..........>>> topcitypay
The question for me is can you have a limited nuclear war? If you start out using nuclear weapons will things just escalate? The only time nuclear weapons were used was a case where only one country had the weapons. That is not the case now and then the question is how many nuclear weapons can we really use before we start having worldwide negative effects?
"If you start out using nuclear weapons"
That would be controversial to say the least. And if the aim was for Russia to devastate Ukraine, then perhaps simply targeting Ukraine's nuclear power plants with conventional weapons would be enough to bring the nation to her knees.
Erasing communism is a plus that's kind of hard to cancel out by pointing at pollution. Most pollution occurs within looter slave borders.
Thank you for sharing this useful and informative post with us.