Ukraine Conflict - In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only war!

[rjshae]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Ukraine doesn't use/ build them because it would alienate everyone except the staunchest NAFOids. Indeed, 90% of the discourse about them has been about them being used as false flags by Russia or Ukraine for that very reason.

Right, it would be a method of last resort, when Putin's forces are potentially closing in on Kiev, for example. The question is whether to demonstrate the capability in advance.

[kanisatha]

21 hours ago, BruceVC said:

So you understand why Israel wont let Iran get nukes  and they will resort to military actions to prevent this 

Its the same principle for the US and Russia?

Yes, and for China vis-a-vis Taiwan.

[kanisatha]

18 hours ago, HoonDing said:

"OTOH, with the Europeans, even if they give a commitment to fight, I would not consider it credible or trustworthy."

Even Belgium helped with Dubya's War On Terror

Belgium

Belgium

The so-called War on Terror was a very different animal compared with specific actual wars, like Afghanistan or Iraq. And just like with those wars so too in any Ukraine scenario, several NATO countries will send a handful of troops or a couple of fighter jets, completely symbolic and tactcally useless but where they can then pat themselves on the back and claim that they contributed.

[kanisatha]

20 hours ago, rjshae said:

Hence why would (obviously) need to be done in secret. It wouldn't surprise me to learn it has already been planned. The time frame for Ukraine to build dirty bombs is months.

Zelensky's doomsday nuke option

I wouldn't have much faith that a Ukrainian nuke weapons program (a simple dirty bomb doesn't count) could be kept secret, especially given that the FSB has surely penetrated Ukraine pretty widely.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

The so-called War on Terror was a very different animal compared with specific actual wars, like Afghanistan or Iraq. And just like with those wars so too in any Ukraine scenario, several NATO countries will send a handful of troops or a couple of fighter jets, completely symbolic and tactcally useless but where they can then pat themselves on the back and claim that they contributed.

In Iraq war UK send 47k troops. Poland send 194 troops that were already in area to particitipate the ivasion. US invasion force was 150k troops.

No other European coutries participated in the invasion. After Bush declared victory, multinational force than has mostly troops from Nato countries was formed to help keep peace, it had about 20k troops. 

 

In Afganistan international alliance sent at peak about 40k troops and US 90k troops.

Both were wars that US started and its allies send help. (Notable exception Israel which didn't help in either war)

[Malcador]

21 hours ago, HoonDing said:

"OTOH, with the Europeans, even if they give a commitment to fight, I would not consider it credible or trustworthy."

Even Belgium helped with Dubya's War On Terror

Belgium

Belgium

In hindsight, we were a bunch of suckers. The mighty US could go avenge two buildings themselves.

[uuuhhii]

cia will be the one to kill any nuclear project in nato proxy first

sadly the current idiotic usa might be stupid enough to do something like give south korea or turkey nuke

give humanity the well deserved nuclear winter

[kanisatha]

22 hours ago, Elerond said:

In Iraq war UK send 47k troops. Poland send 194 troops that were already in area to particitipate the ivasion. US invasion force was 150k troops.

No other European coutries participated in the invasion. After Bush declared victory, multinational force than has mostly troops from Nato countries was formed to help keep peace, it had about 20k troops. 

 

In Afganistan international alliance sent at peak about 40k troops and US 90k troops.

Both were wars that US started and its allies send help. (Notable exception Israel which didn't help in either war)

I specifically did not include the UK in my previous observations. The UK has, at least in the past, been a good and reliable ally for us. I was specifically talking about Belgium (and other countries like it), because Belgium was what was brought up.

[kanisatha]

20 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

cia will be the one to kill any nuclear project in nato proxy first

sadly the current idiotic usa might be stupid enough to do something like give south korea or turkey nuke

give humanity the well deserved nuclear winter

Both South Korea and Japan *should* go nuclear.

[uuuhhii]

4 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Both South Korea and Japan *should* go nuclear.

 

that would be as dumb and harmful as let uk or france have nuke

but since that happened already there is no saving it

right now south africa would be the one should have nuke instead

again will never be allowed by nato

[Zoraptor]

Apartheid era South Africa did have nukes*, whatever NATO said. And for that at least it seems that the US/ west genuinely made an effort to stop them no matter how tepid the other anti apartheid measures were.

*Most probably obtained in whole or part from a similarly minded apartheid state. 

[BruceVC]

14 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

 

that would be as dumb and harmful as let uk or france have nuke

but since that happened already there is no saving it

right now south africa would be the one should have nuke instead

again will never be allowed by nato

Why would South Africa need nukes, what are you talking about?

 

We have nuclear energy but we definitely dont need nukes and NATO has nothing to do with it