Putin would have to use a sub, and given his armed forces can't seemingly maintain a truck or 40 year old tank I'm betting it wouldn't make to the other side of the world undetected.
What's to stop Finland and Sweden joining NATO quickly?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Putin would have to use a sub, and given his armed forces can't seemingly maintain a truck or 40 year old tank I'm betting it wouldn't make to the other side of the world undetected.
What's to stop Finland and Sweden joining NATO quickly?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,870
- Location
- Essex
My post was alluding to the fact that we might just have to at some point play nuclear poker with Putin .
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,894
- Location
- newcastle
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Ah that's ok then. Love the whataboutery comrade
Ah yes, caring about treatment of POW's is being "on the wrong side of History", gotcha! I mean it's never a red flag when someone suggests that we need to do something morally and ethically wrong to avoid being "on the wrong side of history", such as
Ahleckz said:
where you are advocating that people involved in POW handling should break the GC but thankfully you will NEVER, EVER be in a situation involving contact with POW's (luckily for them) so personal your opinion means nothing, I'm just glad that our Armed Forces are specifically trained to follow the rules of war unlike yourself who would apparently be happy to abuse POW's whilst spouting that if we don't we'd be on the wrong side of history!
Ah that's ok then. Love the whataboutery comrade
Wierd response, but hey ho, most of your posts are.
What's weird? They literally started shelling in the vicinity of the reactors, given Russian accuracy that isn't wise?
so they can’t be paid off, or how about someone he sees as a friend doing it.
Can ya, aye?
you’ve been massively hyping up the Russians all through the thread, tbh you’ve had an absolute howler.
You were there and saw it first hand, and not through biased reports online?
Ok right i will take your word for it thanks.
Note any western or Ukranian reporting of the incident WILL make out the Russians to be indiscriminately attacking.
ONLY someone actually there will know the real truth.
And no i do not know the truth, just assuming that as normal human beings, who by all accounts don't want to be there shooting their neighbours, Russian soldiers shooting anything towards a nuclear reactor WILL NOT deliberately want to damage or destroy it, and potentially kill themselves and millions of their countrymen and women.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,626
- Location
- La France
NATO might not react, but what about AUKUS?
I think that's a possibility especially in a mass genocide scenario.
Putin waves around the nukes but in reality he's gone from 1% probability to 2%.
Firstly, the majority of any EU/NATO/whoever force projected into Ukraine would be air power launched from bases hundreds of km from the border, they won't be a few km inside the border in any meaningful sense until air supremacy is achieved.
Secondly, it's highly unlikely Putin would nuke anyone over such an incursion although conventional strikes into the territories of countries taking part are likely. The price of nukes is too high as it would be answered in kind, and would likely lead even China to issue sanctions. The risk is escalation over time not a sudden nuclear response.
Finally, the risk that needs weighing up is whether not acting carries a higher chance of said escalation. Putin has been steadily emboldened by Western inaction so far.
Personally, I continue to think that sending in forces carries too high a risk of escalation for now, but it's a careful balance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,626
- Location
- La France
Flying a B52 within range of any of the modern Russia SAM systems would be suicidal.
Low-level A10s to recreate The Basra Road in Ukraine would be the way to go after Wild Weasel teams take out the local SAMs.
Perhaps but that seems to be a looser arrangement than NATO. Do they have an Article 5 equivalent?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,894
- Location
- newcastle
A B52 wouldn’t be within a 100 miles of Russian air defence, they would all carry stand off munitions, until Russian air defence was suppressed
No i am just a realist, way too many people on here just do not look at the blinking obvious right in frint of their faces.
Optimists are always looking upwards, so often loose their footing and fall.
Pessimists are always looking down to check their footing, so bang their heads and fall.
Realists look ahead and miss all the obstacles and do not fall.
Have never hyped up the Russians once.
Just never taken them for the idiots everyone else seems to think they are.
you didn't notice -
bbc dialogue changed from saying training building, and where is that geographically versus reactor ?, to a shelling/missiles dialogue, with no location, on later reports,
not that it isn't irresponsible.
- Status