World War III Updates

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Don’t.

Oh, I know how I WANT us to respond.  Respond with rational and reasoned thought and applying common sense while still holding out enemies accountable for their actions.   But that's NOT how we've been acting.  I'm curious about the most likely action our current leadership would actually take.  It could get kinda interesting when you consider that those making recommendations to NCA are probably argyle wearing academics who have never had their lives placed in any form of peril.  Put those people on the receiving end of a suspected nuclear launch and I'd be surprised if they make totally rational inputs.  Beyond that, I highly doubt Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to make a good snap decision in such a case.  Hence the question: What would we actually do?

[fire4effect]

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com)

Actually makes a great point.

[BashiChuni]

because ukraine has NEVER been a US national security concern. we have never and will never care about ukraine.

it's apples to oranges.

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com)

Actually makes a great point.

Easy—Israel is a much stronger ally than Ukraine, especially considering both regions.  Also, we’re much more concerned about pissing Russia off (even more) than we are with Iran.  Not to mention the politics here in the US involved with supporting Israel over the years.  Oh and the regions are different as well in terms of US priorities, but I think I kind of mentioned that already.  
 

But to be fair, I don’t think we should actively get involved with either.

[fire4effect]

8 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

because ukraine has NEVER been a US national security concern. we have never and will never care about ukraine.

it's apples to oranges.

I would counter that was the thought in the 1930s with Germany. Hitler just wanted a little more territory and he would be good. I have little doubt had Putin been in power in the 1930s-40s he would have been just as bad. 

What line is too far?

I'm still as pissed as many over the Charlie Foxtrot that was/is Afghanistan but at least Ukraine is willing to fight.

[BashiChuni]

im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons.

putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.

[HeloDude]

25 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

I would counter that was the thought in the 1930s with Germany. Hitler just wanted a little more territory and he would be good. I have little doubt had Putin been in power in the 1930s-40s he would have been just as bad. 

What line is too far?

I'm still as pissed as many over the Charlie Foxtrot that was/is Afghanistan but at least Ukraine is willing to fight.

There’s a massive difference between Chamberlain telling Hitler that the UK is fine Germany taking additional territory in 1930s and the west condemning Russia for invading Ukraine but not wanting to give them an endless supply of resources. 
 

Appeasement is not the same as spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have to support a country halfway around the world.

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons.

putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.

Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe...

Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."

[fire4effect]

I guess we can agree to disagree on this but one of the worse things is to suddenly find out a military prediction is wrong because by then it's usually too late. 

As an example, I admit Hamas hitting Israel like they did was something I would have never seen coming in a million years. I'm still dumfounded Israel could get caught that flat footed. 

[Chuck17]

Perhaps the real win in all this was watching AMC tell USTC to KIO when it came to Bravo alerts…

Chuck

 

[tac airlifter]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:15 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well.  

What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them.

I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion. 

Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please. 

We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success. 

Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End. 

Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox:

If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs. 

Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Good reply, thank you for writing it out.  I'll reply in kind when able if you're still interested, but it won't be for a bit.  More than once here I've gotten a thoughtful reply, but lamentably have been too busy to respond in a worthy fashion.  🥃

[gearhog]

On 4/17/2024 at 11:58 PM, busdriver said:

At the end of the day, yes.  They aren't NATO.  This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process.

This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up.  This war will be fought economically.  Hopefully.

I really really hope.  Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb.  Sending more money/equipment is par for the course.  

Also Moldovia is fucked too.

Perhaps you're right, the war will be fought economically. If one wanted to slowly weaken, bleed, and defeat Russia, here's how we should go about it:

Economically: First, we get Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. Interfere in their elections by funding Communists and leftists. That's assuming they have free and fair elections. Once their domestic spending outpaces their GDP by a substantial amount, we compel them to send hundreds of billions of dollars more to foreign governments. They'll be forced to further into debt, using creative tools to sustain their economy.  Soon, they won't be able to maintain an infrastructure, the Russian standard of living declines, and social unrest ensues.

I also see other strategic opportunities to weaken Russia:

Socially: Using technology and social media, we inundate it's population with propaganda. We flood them with polarizing ideas and political ideologies. We create organizations that fund the migration of millions of poverty level people, particularly military age young men, from a vast array of cultural, religious backgrounds, creating a further strain on resources and social cohesion. Sponsor protests. Encourage violence.

Militarily: Focus on making Russian military service an undesirable career choice. Create a recruiting crisis that shrinks the size of their military. Make them reliant on complex technologies with multiple single points of failure and insanely expensive acquisitions processes instead of mass and production. Create cognitive dissonance by telling Russians they're fighting for the nobel principles Russia was founded on while simultaneously incentivizing Russian politicians to destroy those principles.

Energy: Make them deplete their energy reserves and hamstring domestic production by making them adhere to global climate change policies. Make them reliant on foreign cheap oil.

I could go on, but I see plenty of opportunities to weaken Russia over the long term. The key is, it takes time. We can't allow ourselves to be provoked into an overreaction, massive escalation, or direct military conflict. If we're patient, Russia will eventually collapse from within.

Edited April 20, 2024 by gearhog

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Good reply, thank you for writing it out.  I'll reply in kind when able if you're still interested, but it won't be for a bit.  More than once here I've gotten a thoughtful reply, but lamentably have been too busy to respond in a worthy fashion.  🥃

No rush. I've done the same. Perils of the Internet🤷🏻‍♂️

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

Very good points and analysis.

Another area to examine is the negative trend of their population and how the war has accelerated it.

Russian's population has been in a slow decline for sometime.  There was a small recovery a few years ago but the war will soon reflect on the demographics and will have a huge impact in years to come.  At least 50,000 have been killed in Ukraine, many many more severely injured.  They already have a huge age imbalance due to lower birthrates and a few other issues.  Without immigration (which they don't like), they have a huge socioeconomic aging bubble moving through the system.  While they are attempting to rebuild their military they will continue to face challenges finding qualified MAMs to meet their needs. 

 

 

 

 

[FourFans]

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

[skybert]

Dibs!!

[fire4effect]

4 hours ago, FourFans said:

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

This demographic does seem to try harder to please. So I've been told.

[FourFans]

3 hours ago, skybert said:

Dibs!!

because he's off...or will be thereso getting...Biff says:

Edited April 21, 2024 by FourFans

[Clark Griswold]

I would say that I'm Ukraine War continuation skeptical but not opposed exactly, they passed the "funding" bill but as a skeptic I would be less skeptical, cynical and maybe supportive if they passed a funding vehicle (bureacracy speak phrase for tax increase or creation) to pay for this appropriation 
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/04/20/betrayal-complete-mike-johnson-passes-61-billion-ukraine-aid-violates-hastert-rule-again/
Like climate change preening / virtue signalling... if the activist / big mouth / holier than thou person advocating for a low energy life style actually lived that way themselves I'd take them seriously, but as they are not actually for paying for it but thru debt issuance, continued funding seems less than honorable
Follow up: 
So as I know there are CODEL staffers lurking on this thread /s… the IRS says there were 161 million income tax filings, divide that into 60 billion, that’s about $373 per filer, propose an amendment or stand alone bill to 2023 income tax filings and collect the money, not holding breath but that would go long way to burnishing your credentials and supposed commitment to the LIO and love of it 
 

Edited April 21, 2024 by Clark Griswold
Tilting at windmills not complete yet

[fire4effect]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I would say that I'm Ukraine War continuation skeptical but not opposed exactly, they passed the "funding" bill but as a skeptic I would be less skeptical, cynical and maybe supportive if they passed a funding vehicle (bureacracy speak phrase for tax increase or creation) to pay for this appropriation 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/04/20/betrayal-complete-mike-johnson-passes-61-billion-ukraine-aid-violates-hastert-rule-again/

Like climate change preening / virtue signalling... if the activist / big mouth / holier than thou person advocating for a low energy life style actually lived that way themselves I'd take them seriously, but as they are not actually for paying for it but thru debt issuance, continued funding seems less than honorable

This.

I paid a ton in taxes this year, so I guess I'm doing my part. LOL

Ahh the hypocrisy. Taylor Swift and her private jet. HAD to be there to watch her boyfriend throw his tantrum in person instead of watching it on TV. What would have happened if any of us had done that to our boss? Not to mention all the electricity used for her Era's tour. Generated most if not all by fossil fuels. I wonder how many in the Go Green crowd would give up everything in their life that contains plastic (think cellphone). A big problem as I see it is the lack of true scientific literacy in Congress. Laws of thermodynamics/physics don't care what is written in a law. 

 

[Lawman]

This.
I paid a ton in taxes this year, so I guess I'm doing my part. LOL
Ahh the hypocrisy. Taylor Swift and her private jet. HAD to be there to watch her boyfriend throw his tantrum in person instead of watching it on TV. What would have happened if any of us had done that to our boss? Not to mention all the electricity used for her Era's tour. Generated most if not all by fossil fuels. I wonder how many in the Go Green crowd would give up everything in their life that contains plastic (think cellphone). A big problem as I see it is the lack of true scientific literacy in Congress. Laws of thermodynamics/physics don't care what is written in a law. 
 

It goes way beyond Plastic.

A society without soaps… most medications… superior lubricants to machine parts… fertilizers growing 8 billion people in food.

The sheer stupidity of somebody that thinks human existence can exist at this scale without petroleum is just unaware of anything petroleum is used as a precursor or provides the bulk chemical make up of. They just think a barrel of oil = gasoline = bad stuff for global warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:38 PM, fire4effect said:

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com)

Actually makes a great point.

We have a named operation obligating us to provide Missile Defense for Israel; there is no such legal obligation for Ukraine. 

[gearhog]

13 hours ago, Lawman said:

The sheer stupidity of somebody that thinks human existence can exist at this scale without petroleum is just unaware of anything petroleum is used as a precursor or provides the bulk chemical make up of. They just think a barrel of oil = gasoline = bad stuff for global warming.

If the equation is simplified as: scale * consumption = global warming, does it make any logical sense whatsoever that those who are imposing climate change policies would only treat scale as a constant, and consumption as a variable?

They're both variable. And as was said above, those advocating for the policies to stop global warming are saying they're for reducing consumption, but their actions indicate they'd like that to be the constant.

I don't think they're stupid.

[Lawman]

If the equation is simplified as: scale * consumption = global warming, does it make any logical sense whatsoever that those who are imposing climate change policies would only treat scale as a constant, and consumption as a variable?
They're both variable. And as was said above, those advocating for the policies to stop global warming are saying they're for reducing consumption, but their actions indicate they'd like that to be the constant.
I don't think they're stupid.

If you actually start looking at original founding members of things like the Sierra club, there is a deeply inhuman meritocracy of human survival they are advocating for silently. John Muir was an advocate for white ascendency and soft extermination of lesser peoples. People that read things like Population bomb and think it is a sound science from a place of money and power don’t want there to be 8 billion people on the Planet. These were champions of Eugenics, which at its time was a widely regarded pseudo scientific thought and now through revision its something we normally just associate with the Nazis.

That doesn’t make that the sole platform of the eco movement. There are utopian-futurists in that movement who want to see us ascend technologically (people that think of things like mass scale tidal power generation), there are opportunistic parasites (people funneling trillions of future investments to the cause so they can be a ground floor owner in that investment). There are the dogmatic zealots (think green-peace/morons like Greta) who see this like an extreme religious crusade.

There isn’t just 1 monolithic ecological identify. But what I’ve found is most of them want no discussion of the trade off to anything they are presenting as the sole and only problem. They want to just do arithmetic in a game that is regulated by calculus/physics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk