Russia must strike in such a way that the enemy understands that it must capitulate. There should not even be such a discussion. If necessary, we are obliged to use [tactical nuclear weapons]... If we need to strike, we will strike. And that is not up for discussion.
15 comments
First off, the entire point of nuclear weapons is that they’re no one’s first choice. It’s a desperate last option to take an attacker down with you.
<@KeithInc. > #263621
If Russia had to pick a bomb at random then lack of proper maintenance could be a problem. For one show nuking that is for strategic threat rather then battlefield advantage they will find one that works. Even if the Russian engineers have to tear it apart and rebuild it.
@JM1234 #263631
I agree completely. And when I consider KeithInc.'s point that Russian nuclear weapons maintenance is almost certainly nonexistent, I can easily imagine the missiles detonating in their silos.
Devastating, yes. But perhaps survivable.
The only time DefCon 2 was ordered was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and by JFK. At one time he was just minutes away from ordering DefCon 1 : and you know what that means. Fortunately we’re still here decades later because saner minds prevailed.
Certainly Khrushchev.
Oh, it can be discussed: even beyond today, until you & Putain admit that all your opinions are more than wrong.
@Sasha #263632
Non-existent is not even the word to use here. We’ve known for decades now that there has been some serious chop-shopping of their missiles, specially the ICBM stuff. The fuel alone can make a man rich for a couple years and they absolutely have been draining that shit, we have genuine accounts of it happening and being quite widespread in fact. Who really knows how many of their big guns would proverbially be able to fire? Also let us remember these are the same people who thought a nuke armed snowpiercer train is a great idea! Literally idiotic unless you are making the most elaborate set-up to a joke about all your nukes currently moving at the speed of 60/h on a train on a loop in siberia and I honestly don’t even know what the punchline would be, besides: That is fucking stupid.
Even if russia was able to launch some of their nuclear arsenal, to do so would be the end of the city of Moscow, the "russian federation", putin, and millions of civilians across the country. It might not be the end of the world, but it would certainly be the end of everyone who thinks like you.
@Skide #263667 and #263677
Sounds like Russia has been suffering from a serious case of "Elongated Muskrat Syndrome" for many years: ruling elites who are stupid, selfish, greedy traitors.
Maybe Vlad needs to suffer a fatal "accident" and put his country, and the rest of the world, out of the misery he created.
Did you play the Fallout video games and seriously say "THAT'S WHAT I WANT?". BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS! DESTRUCTION AND DEATH, Goddamn. You actually want that. A decimated world. At points the itself says China and America nuked each other and China got it worse. You absolutely sure Russia will be ok after?
@Sasha #263688
Has been happening since the Soviet Union started really but at least back in the 80s they had some damper on it still, after the fall, holy fuck they sold out good half of the inventory to whoever was buyin. My HS friend literally got a tank from some old Russkie re-sale and he drives it to and from home in his small town(it’s not road ready, he lives a bit off the paved stuff and can just take it like one does atvs, it’s a t70 if anybody’s inclined to know).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
