On Sat, 08 May 2021 14:23:11 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation >>>>>>>>> overall.
By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and >>>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke >>>>>>>>> Ukraine
into forming a professional army, which has always been a
prerequisite
for entry into NATO.
NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional >>>>>>>>> army
-
a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of >>>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign >>>>>>>>> up
to
defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of >>>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive. >>>>>>>>>
Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing >>>>>>>>> into
NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing >>>>>>>>> his
touch and losing his nerve.
### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not >>>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that >>>>>>>> am
totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else >>>>>>>> they
do
in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin >>>>>>>> or
russia
or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me >>>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am >>>>>>>> familiar
with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit >>>>>>>> they
typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past
against
current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe >>>>>>>> happening...
that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have >>>>>>>> seen
all
their crap before a dozen times over...
and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am >>>>>>>> not
convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
completely
out
of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another
matter...
as
russia never does anything for nada!
and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened >>>>>>>> and
is
happening!
e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor
about
having
its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
planning
an
attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining >>>>>>>> nato
for
obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if
there's
any
kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
am personally not convinced it's all over though just because
russia
is
pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because >>>>>>>> 'ukraine'
isn't done with all this yet!
the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate >>>>>>>> it
was,
only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation >>>>>>>> the
way
it
currently is and may well be planning something!
that nato itself may well be planning something!
obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done
deal"
after
they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're >>>>>>>> ever
gonna do about it!
that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last >>>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that >>>>>>>> it
will
never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change >>>>>>>> their
thinking!
am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the >>>>>>>> case,
it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation) >>>>>>>> they're
all completely insane anyway! :)
anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and >>>>>>>> to
drop
the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then
that's
fine...
that is until the next time ;)
Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads.
Therefore,
your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. >>>>>>> You
should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has
played.
And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
perhaps
even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine. >>>>>>>
Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this >>>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
### - wtf are you talking about now??
have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in >>>>>> it
while considering everything that's gone before...
i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then
that's
your problem not mine.
you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
exist??
just stick to the subject matter ffs!
and stop telling people what to do!
geez...
'another' conversation done/ruined!
Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian,
done/ruined.
I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say >>>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
suggested,
was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than
assertion
(i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
that
it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing >>>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs >>>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and >>>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
*That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i
was
only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it
risked
that... there IS a difference!
and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what
*i*
then took exception to haha :)))
i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't >>>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to >>>> get
annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
(basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped
down
my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective >>>> about the whole thing)
there was no 'proof' either way :)
Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
to see.
Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
Seems you're coming around to that as well.
### - sounds good to moi :)
so let's see how you/we handle this one then ok?
i.e., try to keep your own personal biases aside enough to discuss this
completely objectively regardless of the source (have picked this one
because it covers all the salient points & facts from all sides, which
in
this instance i reckon is actually fairly accurate/inclusive...)
The end of strategic ambiguity? America has finally stopped pretending
it
would risk war with Russia over supposed ‘ally’ Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/523253-ukraine-usa-strategic-ambiguity/
Would the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? As tensions escalate
between Moscow and Kiev, some have warned that the latter’s ‘alliance’ >> with Washington could spiral into a conflict between the two main
nuclear
superpowers.
Except, of course, there is no alliance between the US and Ukraine. This
week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken effectively ended the notion
that Ukraine has Western backers ready to step in at a moment’s notice
if
it finds itself under attack.
Pressed on whether American forces could be sent into battle against
Russian troops to support Kiev in the event of war in an interview with
MSNBC, he answered only that Washington is committed to “helping Ukraine >> defend itself.”
In other words, no. Indeed, with these words, Blinken backed up
suspicions
in Moscow that Washington stands ready to fight Moscow down to the very
last Ukrainian, but would never risk its own troops.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the secretary of state’s
response, which has effectively ended a calculated policy of strategic
ambiguity over Ukraine. For years, the State Department has been
reluctant
to be drawn on just how far it would go for the Eastern European nation,
and whether it would send its own soldiers into battle for its supposed
ally.
The fact that mask has slipped now fundamentally changes the nature of
the
situation. It comes as the White House has also seemingly pivoted its
foreign policy in the region by revising a section in an official
transcript to play down the prospect of Ukraine joining the NATO
military
bloc. After turning to the West following the 2014 Maidan, Kiev has
played
up its credentials with the EU and US, emphasizing the importance of its
‘alliances’ and its role as a vanguard against supposed Russian
aggression
towards Central Europe. That argument is now based on less and less
evidence.
The gamble of strategic ambiguity
Strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying your red lines and
potential responses, is often an ideal approach when it concerns the
defense of an ally or partner such as Ukraine. Most notably, the US has
applied a similar approach to Taiwan.
Suggesting that Washington may provide direct support intends to deter
adversarial states like Russia and China, as the added uncertainty about
the US response makes it hard to predict how a situation might escalate.
Strategic ambiguity is preferable to making firm commitments to defend
its
partners for two main reasons – first, the US would lose its credibility >> in the arena of global security if a war broke out and it decided at the
last minute to not live up to its commitments. Second, offering firm
promises of support could encourage states like Ukraine or Taiwan to
pursue bolder and more aggressive strategies.
(see above link for the full article which is much longer/extensive and
covers all the salient points in depth...)
(slider thus knocks the ball over the net to thang, underarm-style, in
order to first test thang's backhand return...)
anyone for tennis? ;)
My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
assist.
This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that stupid.
So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
a war with the one and only superpower.
That's my 2 dollars' worth...
On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:51:34 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com> >wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2021 14:23:11 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
<libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:
It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation >>>>>>>>>> overall.
By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and >>>>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke >>>>>>>>>> Ukraine
into forming a professional army, which has always been a
prerequisite
for entry into NATO.
NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional >>>>>>>>>> army
-
a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of >>>>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign >>>>>>>>>> up
to
defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of >>>>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive. >>>>>>>>>>
Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing >>>>>>>>>> into
NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing >>>>>>>>>> his
touch and losing his nerve.
### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not >>>>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that >>>>>>>>> am
totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else >>>>>>>>> they
do
in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin >>>>>>>>> or
russia
or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me >>>>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am >>>>>>>>> familiar
with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit >>>>>>>>> they
typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past >>>>>>>>> against
current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe >>>>>>>>> happening...
that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have >>>>>>>>> seen
all
their crap before a dozen times over...
and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am >>>>>>>>> not
convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
completely
out
of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another
matter...
as
russia never does anything for nada!
and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened >>>>>>>>> and
is
happening!
e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor >>>>>>>>> about
having
its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be >>>>>>>>> planning
an
attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining >>>>>>>>> nato
for
obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if
there's
any
kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
am personally not convinced it's all over though just because >>>>>>>>> russia
is
pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because >>>>>>>>> 'ukraine'
isn't done with all this yet!
the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate >>>>>>>>> it
was,
only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation >>>>>>>>> the
way
it
currently is and may well be planning something!
that nato itself may well be planning something!
obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done >>>>>>>>> deal"
after
they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're >>>>>>>>> ever
gonna do about it!
that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last >>>>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that >>>>>>>>> it
will
never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change >>>>>>>>> their
thinking!
am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the >>>>>>>>> case,
it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation) >>>>>>>>> they're
all completely insane anyway! :)
anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and >>>>>>>>> to
drop
the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then >>>>>>>>> that's
fine...
that is until the next time ;)
Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads.
Therefore,
your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. >>>>>>>> You
should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has
played.
And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and >>>>>>>> perhaps
even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's >>>>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine. >>>>>>>>
Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this >>>>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
### - wtf are you talking about now??
have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in >>>>>>> it
while considering everything that's gone before...
i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then
that's
your problem not mine.
you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even >>>>>>> exist??
just stick to the subject matter ffs!
and stop telling people what to do!
geez...
'another' conversation done/ruined!
Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian,
done/ruined.
I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say >>>>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
suggested,
was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than
assertion
(i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only >>>>> that
it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing >>>>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs >>>>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and >>>>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
*That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took >>>>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i >>>>> was
only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it
risked
that... there IS a difference!
and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what >>>>> *i*
then took exception to haha :)))
i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't >>>>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to >>>>> get
annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
(basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped
down
my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective >>>>> about the whole thing)
there was no 'proof' either way :)
Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
to see.
Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof >>>> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
Seems you're coming around to that as well.
### - sounds good to moi :)
so let's see how you/we handle this one then ok?
i.e., try to keep your own personal biases aside enough to discuss this
completely objectively regardless of the source (have picked this one
because it covers all the salient points & facts from all sides, which
in
this instance i reckon is actually fairly accurate/inclusive...)
The end of strategic ambiguity? America has finally stopped pretending
it
would risk war with Russia over supposed ‘ally’ Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/523253-ukraine-usa-strategic-ambiguity/
Would the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? As tensions escalate
between Moscow and Kiev, some have warned that the latter’s ‘alliance’
with Washington could spiral into a conflict between the two main
nuclear
superpowers.
Except, of course, there is no alliance between the US and Ukraine. This >>> week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken effectively ended the notion
that Ukraine has Western backers ready to step in at a moment’s notice >>> if
it finds itself under attack.
Pressed on whether American forces could be sent into battle against
Russian troops to support Kiev in the event of war in an interview with
MSNBC, he answered only that Washington is committed to “helping Ukraine >>> defend itself.”
In other words, no. Indeed, with these words, Blinken backed up
suspicions
in Moscow that Washington stands ready to fight Moscow down to the very
last Ukrainian, but would never risk its own troops.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the secretary of state’s >>> response, which has effectively ended a calculated policy of strategic
ambiguity over Ukraine. For years, the State Department has been
reluctant
to be drawn on just how far it would go for the Eastern European nation, >>> and whether it would send its own soldiers into battle for its supposed
ally.
The fact that mask has slipped now fundamentally changes the nature of
the
situation. It comes as the White House has also seemingly pivoted its
foreign policy in the region by revising a section in an official
transcript to play down the prospect of Ukraine joining the NATO
military
bloc. After turning to the West following the 2014 Maidan, Kiev has
played
up its credentials with the EU and US, emphasizing the importance of its >>> ‘alliances’ and its role as a vanguard against supposed Russian
aggression
towards Central Europe. That argument is now based on less and less
evidence.
The gamble of strategic ambiguity
Strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying your red lines and
potential responses, is often an ideal approach when it concerns the
defense of an ally or partner such as Ukraine. Most notably, the US has
applied a similar approach to Taiwan.
Suggesting that Washington may provide direct support intends to deter
adversarial states like Russia and China, as the added uncertainty about >>> the US response makes it hard to predict how a situation might escalate. >>>
Strategic ambiguity is preferable to making firm commitments to defend
its
partners for two main reasons – first, the US would lose its credibility >>> in the arena of global security if a war broke out and it decided at the >>> last minute to not live up to its commitments. Second, offering firm
promises of support could encourage states like Ukraine or Taiwan to
pursue bolder and more aggressive strategies.
(see above link for the full article which is much longer/extensive and
covers all the salient points in depth...)
(slider thus knocks the ball over the net to thang, underarm-style, in
order to first test thang's backhand return...)
anyone for tennis? ;)
My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
assist.
This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that
stupid.
So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
a war with the one and only superpower.
That's my 2 dollars' worth...
### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
On Tue, 25 May 2021 11:30:58 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com> >wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 06:51:15 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
(had to trim this to get it past my server's limitation...)
My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia >>>>>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine. >>>>>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and >>>>>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
assist.
This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the >>>>>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary >>>>>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, >>>>>> all
the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so >>>>>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force >>>>>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no >>>>>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin >>>>>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war >>>>>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not
that
stupid.
So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep >>>>>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he >>>>>> has
worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in >>>>>> a war with the one and only superpower.
That's my 2 dollars' worth...
### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
Well I'm not blaming the Russians in this case. For instance, *half*
the entire Russian BUDGET comes from energy supplies to Europe. There >>>> is no way that Putin would risk Nordstream 2, which is almost
completed anyway, and the pragmatic Biden admin has therefore resisted >>>> pressure to sanction the oligarch(s) who are funding the construction
of this massive pipeline. There's simply no need when Putin relies so >>>> much, and will continue to rely so much, on energy sales to several
hundre million wealthy Europeans.
There will be no war with Russia and therefore no need to blame
Russia. The war will be with China.
### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out of
nato for all the obvious reasons...
No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position on >the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
right on its doorstep?
truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
mean)
that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND >>>>> islam!
Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
mine.
### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
capable
of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
hand...
if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we (the
west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
growing
and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
growth...
the future thus looks chinese? ;)
No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
top of the CCP?
### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without clambering >over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
that mean, war. And he knows it.
### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
western thinking) man?
thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in the >end when china economically out-grows them...
china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it, >knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
china's bitch otherwise...
nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones limbering
up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
having a trade-war with them...
this is how it usually starts anyway... that, or a: 'look what they've
done!' type-scenario that instantly inflames all the trump-type supporters
to instantly start chanting: down with the enemy! down with the enemy!
(they don't give a damn whom that 'enemy is haha, just so long as there is >one lol, something they can finally relate to haha :))))
So does Biden and even Trump knew that. Even the American Johnson,
who by the way is part Jew and therefore has an allegiance with the
Zionists, is sending warships to the Pacific pending what he knows
will happen.
### - this 'sabre-rattling' has been going on since obama left office, him >saying that the south china seas is to be the next big area of interest
for western forces and ships, that we're all going 'over-there' now...
and because i don't agree that 'might is right', mainly because that's >>>>> precisely how ya end up with the 'rule-of-fist' as opposed to the rule >>>>> of
reason!
But might is right has always been the way. Can I refer you to the
Melian Dialogues? You can read them here - they are simply astounding >>>> (although Thucydides did not actually witness the negotiations):
Here it is in pdf:
http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20Dialogues.pdf
Read the logic of the Greeks in full force as a power of war between
non-equals...
### - might being right only goes so far before it always disappears up
its own dirtbox, it sows the seeds of its own destruction every time...
imho, we either evolve now beyond all that old thinking or we wont get
much farther...
You didn't read the Dialogues, did you? It won't take long. Just
focus for a little while and you will definitely be rewarded by how
callous the cruel equations of dominance and aggression can be.
### - didn't feel the need to read it as am fairly familiar with the >going-arguments for the rule of fist etc, i mean, all ya have to do is
look at modern hitler for a near perfect example of what 'that' shit is >really all about no? he even explains it quite well, not only though his >words but also his actions... and ya don't really get much more of a
'creep' than that?? (creep, in the sense that he was all-too-willing to go >put such a horrible barbarous plan into action and screw the consequences!
- yeah, a few millions will necessarily have to die, he grinned, but we'll >all be better off in the end??? yeah well he can fuck off with that!? lol)
i mean... IF there really WAS such a thing as the 'devil' (and i really
don't think there is hah) then even HE must've been standing there
watching little shitler grinning + rubbing his hands in glee while loading >jews into the gas ovens... and wondered to himself: who the fuck IS this >shitler cunt??? maan this fucker's gotta go!
;)
no one 'wants' global annihilation! (no one sane does anyway) and yet >>>>> that's precisely what we increasingly risk at every turn by insisting >>>>> that
'our' way is better than any other way instead of intelligently taking >>>>> the
best bits from all of them and coming up with something less
competitive?
Hitler and Stalin would have detonated nukes all over the place if
they had gotten to them first. We have saner people in power now,
even in Russia.
### - 'mutually assured destruction' (the MAD treaty) is the clear
realisation that no one can ever win a nuclear war, the old thinking
ends
right there... with ever-dwindling resources we either learn to share or >>> stagnate...
MAD is no longer in vogue nor has been for quite a while. Now it is
thinkable. Some nations reserve the right to strike first, like
Russia.
### - whether it still exists or not is immaterial in the sense that the
same 'understanding' still prevails even if the agreement itself does
not...
i.e., that there's no such thing as a winnable nuclear war even on a small >scale because of the resulting damage to the earth and everything in it, >including us! nuclear winters, radiation, the lot! the survivors of which >would be set back to the stone age? IF there 'were' any survivors that is!
i mean, you start nuking cities mate... and they'll ALL go! there wont be >anything left!
### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out
of
nato for all the obvious reasons...
No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position
on
the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
right on its doorstep?
So, you agree with me. That's a good start :)
truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i >>>>>> mean)
that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND >>>>>> islam!
Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the >>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and >>>>> mine.
### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
capable
of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
hand...
if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we
(the
west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
growing
and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic >>>> growth...
the future thus looks chinese? ;)
No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
top of the CCP?
### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
clambering
over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
was practically all there was (and is) to it.
Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.
In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
that mean, war. And he knows it.
### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
western thinking) man?
When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
can do better than that Slider.
Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
man and ideal who Putin still worships.
thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in
the
end when china economically out-grows them...
Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
Putin?
Have you been drinking?
china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
china's bitch otherwise...
I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
war gets HOT.
nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones
limbering
up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
having a trade-war with them...
I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.
Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
the Chinese.
this is how it usually starts anyway... that, or a: 'look what they've
done!' type-scenario that instantly inflames all the trump-type
supporters
to instantly start chanting: down with the enemy! down with the enemy!
(they don't give a damn whom that 'enemy is haha, just so long as there
is
one lol, something they can finally relate to haha :))))
In this case, China needs to go and quick, fucking pronto. It's now mainstream knowledge that China was not only the vector for the plague
which has killed probably close to 10 million now but also the origin
of an engineered disease. Strange these cunts have evaded the worst
economic effects of the plague they started...
So does Biden and even Trump knew that. Even the American Johnson,
who by the way is part Jew and therefore has an allegiance with the
Zionists, is sending warships to the Pacific pending what he knows
will happen.
### - this 'sabre-rattling' has been going on since obama left office,
him
saying that the south china seas is to be the next big area of interest
for western forces and ships, that we're all going 'over-there' now...
"Interest". Nice choice of words there mate. How about - seas red
with blood and green with radioactivity? Has a better ring to it,
yes?
and because i don't agree that 'might is right', mainly because
that's
precisely how ya end up with the 'rule-of-fist' as opposed to the
rule
of
reason!
But might is right has always been the way. Can I refer you to the
Melian Dialogues? You can read them here - they are simply
astounding
(although Thucydides did not actually witness the negotiations):
Here it is in pdf:
http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20Dialogues.pdf
Read the logic of the Greeks in full force as a power of war between >>>>> non-equals...
### - might being right only goes so far before it always disappears
up
its own dirtbox, it sows the seeds of its own destruction every
time...
imho, we either evolve now beyond all that old thinking or we wont get >>>> much farther...
You didn't read the Dialogues, did you? It won't take long. Just
focus for a little while and you will definitely be rewarded by how
callous the cruel equations of dominance and aggression can be.
### - didn't feel the need to read it as am fairly familiar with the
going-arguments for the rule of fist etc, i mean, all ya have to do is
look at modern hitler for a near perfect example of what 'that' shit is
really all about no? he even explains it quite well, not only though his
words but also his actions... and ya don't really get much more of a
'creep' than that?? (creep, in the sense that he was all-too-willing to
go
put such a horrible barbarous plan into action and screw the
consequences!
- yeah, a few millions will necessarily have to die, he grinned, but
we'll
all be better off in the end??? yeah well he can fuck off with that!?
lol)
i mean... IF there really WAS such a thing as the 'devil' (and i really
don't think there is hah) then even HE must've been standing there
watching little shitler grinning + rubbing his hands in glee while
loading
jews into the gas ovens... and wondered to himself: who the fuck IS this
shitler cunt??? maan this fucker's gotta go!
Thucydides wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, practically the
only ancient historical text which has stood scrutiny for over 2K
years. I matriculated in Ancient History and read the fucker in my
final year of High School. The Melian Dialogues are almost
insignificant compared to the History but WELL WORTH READING.
And who are you to say you "didn't feel the need to read it"? Only
kidding Brian, but really, you would gain a lot of practical knowledge
on how to live and lead your life (this one at least) by reading such
old texts.
Ever heard of a guy called the Golden Marcus? How about Marcus
Aurelius? A humanitarian and philosophical leader of the giant
killing machine known as the Roman Empire. You should read some of
his notes, his "Meditations" - it will make you a more rounded human,
like me LOL
;)
no one 'wants' global annihilation! (no one sane does anyway) and
yet
that's precisely what we increasingly risk at every turn by
insisting
that
'our' way is better than any other way instead of intelligently
taking
the
best bits from all of them and coming up with something less
competitive?
Hitler and Stalin would have detonated nukes all over the place if
they had gotten to them first. We have saner people in power now,
even in Russia.
### - 'mutually assured destruction' (the MAD treaty) is the clear
realisation that no one can ever win a nuclear war, the old thinking
ends
right there... with ever-dwindling resources we either learn to share
or
stagnate...
MAD is no longer in vogue nor has been for quite a while. Now it is
thinkable. Some nations reserve the right to strike first, like
Russia.
On Fri, 28 May 2021 05:44:35 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com> >wrote:
### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out >>>>> of
nato for all the obvious reasons...
No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and >>>> desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position
on
the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
right on its doorstep?
So, you agree with me. That's a good start :)
###- i agree with many things you say but not always in the way you
say/spin them ;)
truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i >>>>>>> mean)
that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND >>>>>>> islam!
Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the >>>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and >>>>>> mine.
### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
capable
of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
hand...
if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we
(the
west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
growing
and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic >>>>> growth...
the future thus looks chinese? ;)
No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
top of the CCP?
### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
clambering
over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
was practically all there was (and is) to it.
Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.
### - we're talking about xi and china here aren't we?? so i dunno why you >switch to putin in the next line and then accuse me of changing the
subject haha ;)))
In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
that mean, war. And he knows it.
### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
western thinking) man?
When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
can do better than that Slider.
Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
man and ideal who Putin still worships.
thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in
the
end when china economically out-grows them...
Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
Putin?
Have you been drinking?
### - nope, but apparently you have haha :)
i.e., we were discussing Xi and you've suddenly switched to putin, so none
of my remarks apply...
read the above again in terms of Xi and it'll make more sense, putin's a >different kettle of fish altogether...
china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
china's bitch otherwise...
I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
war gets HOT.
### - it's too late for all that wishful thinking... things 'are' the way >they currently are no?
and the way things 'are' is that we either come to some intelligent >'arrangement' with china, or go to war with them and THAT would be
disastrous for all concerned!
and yet, i fear, they (the west) will probably DO exactly that in the vain >glorious hope that their/our western ideology will come out the overall >winner, duh!
and when, in truth, all they'll actually succeed in doing that way is >smashing everything up and sending us all back to the middle ages whereby >it'll ALL just start over again (coz china will have their survivors too)
and nada will have changed!
nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones
limbering
up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
having a trade-war with them...
I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.
Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian
relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
the Chinese.
### - they've already got 1000's just like every other fucker has haha...
some of them so BIG it would only take one of them to take out the whole
of the uk!
50 megaton yields being nothing these days?
and please don't say/suggest that they don't have the delivery systems; >they've just landed probes on both the moon AND mars recently - believe me >they've got the systems!
for some reason though you seem to like to indulge in such reckless
thoughts? either you're just trolling or are actually being quite naive?
basically because what you're suggesting is... unthinkable!?
that you really must step just a little bit farther back and so
see/take-in the bigger picture here?
millions! possibly even billions! would die virtually overnight!
is that what you really... want?
poor old planet wallyworld doesn't need THAT on top of everything ELSE
it's struggling with currently!
i.e., it's like anarchy... looks good on paper, but never works out to
being more than just more people suffering than would ordinarily be the
case if they hadn't bothered...
ditto revolution! one bunch of 'pigs' is replaced by another bunch of
people who soon turn INTO pigs!
and then we're all right back to where we started minus, of course, the
few millions that got mangled in the process??
ditto then too a war with china! it's, it's... ridiculous! lol
sheer insanity being the only possible reason we'd ever go there! (the
proof of insanity thereof!)
truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west >>>>>>>> i
mean)
that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china >>>>>>>> AND
islam!
Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in >>>>>>> the
Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours >>>>>>> and
mine.
### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are >>>>>> capable
of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta >>>>>> hand...
if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we >>>>>> (the
west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
growing
and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via
economic
growth...
the future thus looks chinese? ;)
No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine >>>>> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
top of the CCP?
### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
clambering
over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha -
he's
the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and
kick
his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
was practically all there was (and is) to it.
Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.
### - we're talking about xi and china here aren't we?? so i dunno why
you
switch to putin in the next line and then accuse me of changing the
subject haha ;)))
Nice try but no ceegar :)
Have a look at the original post - I should know, I'm the OP. It was
titled "Putin losing it". **That's** why we're talking about Putin
and why your changing of the topic to Xi veered off course, not me.
In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him >>>>> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and >>>>> that mean, war. And he knows it.
### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
western thinking) man?
When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
can do better than that Slider.
Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
man and ideal who Putin still worships.
thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west, >>>> only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in >>>> the
end when china economically out-grows them...
Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
Putin?
Have you been drinking?
### - nope, but apparently you have haha :)
I drink on three nights of the week and totally abstain from Monday
through to Thursday. Just 'cos I can. Willpower has brought me
everything I wanted in life except for genetics and bad luck.
I won't ask you about your drug imbibation and habitualities. All I
need to know is mine. I do smoke most nights though, it has a calming
effect on me - pot, that is, not tobacco. I don't smoke tobacco.
i.e., we were discussing Xi and you've suddenly switched to putin, so
none
of my remarks apply...
read the above again in terms of Xi and it'll make more sense, putin's a
different kettle of fish altogether...
Read the original post heading. It was (and still is) about Putin
losing control.
china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it, >>>> knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
china's bitch otherwise...
I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
war gets HOT.
### - it's too late for all that wishful thinking... things 'are' the
way
they currently are no?
and the way things 'are' is that we either come to some intelligent
'arrangement' with china, or go to war with them and THAT would be
disastrous for all concerned!
No. They stand for dictatorship, curtailment of freedom, communism
and world empire.
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/index.htm
Best to die on your feet than serve on your knees. Fuck the ChiCom
choag cunts. I would rather be dead than make your sucking, cowardly "intelligent arrangement with china".
Where's your spine, Brian?
and yet, i fear, they (the west) will probably DO exactly that in the
vain
glorious hope that their/our western ideology will come out the overall
winner, duh!
America - 2000 advanced nuclear warheads and gravity bombs
China = <300 untested, primitive " " " "
Elementary, my dear Watson :)
and when, in truth, all they'll actually succeed in doing that way is
smashing everything up and sending us all back to the middle ages
whereby
it'll ALL just start over again (coz china will have their survivors
too)
and nada will have changed!
Hell we'll be fine down here in Oz and NZ. Don't know about Europe
though. I think the US can lose a few cities and be quite ok though,
the US is capable of marvellous feats when they are riled up.
nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't
coz
that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones
limbering
up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
having a trade-war with them...
I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.
Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian
relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
the Chinese.
### - they've already got 1000's just like every other fucker has
haha...
Here's where you don't do your fact checking. It makes me want to
hang up my spurs when I can't have a proper discussion with someone
who at the least DOES THEIR FACT CHECKING before posting nonsense.
Here is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists - pretty authoritative,
wouldn't you say?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2020.1846432
"We estimate that China has a produced a stockpile of approximately
350 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 272 are for delivery by more
than 240 operational land-based ballistic missiles, 48 sea-based
ballistic missiles, and 20 nuclear gravity bombs assigned to bombers.
The remaining 78 warheads are intended to arm additional land- and
sea-based missiles that are in the process of being fielded (see Table
1). This estimate is higher than the “low-200” warheads reported by
the Pentagon in its 2020 report to Congress; however, the Pentagon’s estimate only refers to “operational” Chinese nuclear warheads, and therefore presumably excludes warheads that are attributed to newer
weapons still in development (US Defense Department 2020a)."
Where do you get "thousands"? Never mind...
some of them so BIG it would only take one of them to take out the whole
of the uk!
What fucking total and absolute bullshit. Cite your authoritative
sources please (lol)
50 megaton yields being nothing these days?
Incredible. And you say you aren't drinking?
Citations please...
and please don't say/suggest that they don't have the delivery systems;
they've just landed probes on both the moon AND mars recently - believe
me
they've got the systems!
What the fuck has that to do with inertial guidance systems which are
NOT GUIDED BY THE WIRE - after they launch, ICBM's are on their own!!
Can you not distinguish the difference? Where is that vaunted
intellect of yours?
It has taken the US ~70 years to advance their inertial guidance
systems for ICBMs and SLBMs to where the CEP today is around 50 metres
or so. 70 years!!
Those slope cunts can only steal other coutries IP. TSMC in Taiwan is
the most advanced silicon foundry on the planet second to none and
they are in partnership with the US, where the transistor of course
was invented. Together TSMC and Intel and AMD and Apple have got
their fabs down to 5 billionths of a metre in width - the ChiCom can
only steal such tech, they don't have the cultural or genetic
inventiveness to develop their own silicon tech.
You just don't know what you're talking about which makes me, taking
this time to educate you by showing you your cognitive deficiencies,
consider this to be a waste of time.
for some reason though you seem to like to indulge in such reckless
thoughts? either you're just trolling or are actually being quite naive?
Reckless? RECKLESS?? Are you kdding me? You throw out whatever
crosses that mind of yours as though it's factual - I can't fathom how
you get through life like that with such thought processes, surely
people question you? Take you to task for spouting unaccredited
nonsense?
Well, I'm an old cunt now and I don't suffer fools easily. I'm cranky
as fuck, comes with the age. Shape up Slider and check your facts
before you spray them here. Or at least give me citations and notes (provenance of your "facts" in case I'm wrong).
basically because what you're suggesting is... unthinkable!?
Mate I often think, characteristically, about the cosmos, neutron
stars, infinity, origins, religion, magnitudes you can't even mention
let alone think of - why would I shy away from thinking about nuclear
war?
Such a small life form we are on this lonely planet in the outskirts
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 119:11:33 |
| Calls: | 2,073 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 11,135 |
| Messages: | 947,290 |