Ukraine

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,793
1,412
118
Well if nuclear war were to happen, there would be very little I could do about it and I hope that my final thought is "hey what's that bright fla..."
Well, going off-topic, but that's not true, there's a lot you can do to improve your chances. That thing about schoolkids hiding under their desks i good advice and would have saved lives...for those in a school close enough to be in danger and far away enough to give them a chance.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,748
3,272
118
Country
United Kingdom
By having a member randomly decide it should blockade a Russian exclave?
NATO did not "have" Lithuania do anything. Lithuania views it as implementation of the EU sanctions. I understand you frequently conflate Western multinationals because it helps you attribute actions which were taken independently of the US to the US.

And when Russia decides it needs to break the blockade by force, which then leads to direct military confrontation between it and the entirety of NATO, the most prominent member of which does NOT have a "perfectly reasonable" nuclear doctrine?
There is no "need" to attack Lithuania, to free up the ~1% of railway freight between Russia and Kaliningrad which has been affected by the sanction, and which already has an alternative sea route available.

If Russia were to choose to launch a military attack on NATO over a minor impact of an EU sanction, that would be a completely insane and suicidal move on Russia's part.

((It's true that the US nuclear doctrine is utter dogshit))
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
946
902
98
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
The term "blockade" has a rather specific definition at international law.
What Lithuania is doing (not allowing the transit through its own territory of sanctioned goods, but allowing food and medicine, as well as not blocking sea access) is insufficient to qualify as a blockade.
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 21, 2010
2,001
239
68
Well, going off-topic, but that's not true, there's a lot you can do to improve your chances. That thing about schoolkids hiding under their desks i good advice and would have saved lives...for those in a school close enough to be in danger and far away enough to give them a chance.
Let me clarify. In the event of nuclear war, I have no desire to survive the blast, if I could have the bomb land on top of me then that would be great. I have no desire to die a slow painful death from radiation poisoning or deal with the inevitable collapse of civilization.

Cheerful, I know:)
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,414
1,033
118
Country
United Kingdom
And when Russia decides it needs to break the blockade by force, which then leads to direct military confrontation between it and the entirety of NATO, the most prominent member of which does NOT have a "perfectly reasonable" nuclear doctrine?
US nuclear doctrine is literally built around anticipating the possibility of an attack by a nuclear weapons state against a non-nuclear NATO ally. That is why it is different from the Russian nuclear doctrine. The US would not be existentially threatened by Russia deciding to nuke the city of Riga, but since US nuclear doctrine allows for first use in the context of deterrence, anyone planning on bombing Riga now has to consider the likelihood of US retaliation. That is how nuclear doctrines work. They aren't just an excuse for insecure leaders to show big dick energy, they are a public record of the lines that should be avoided at all costs.

If the Russian government decides to just ignore US nuclear doctrine because Latvia really needs to be part of the Russian empire again, then that falls into the category of insanity or incompetence. This isn't the cold war, and the US isn't going to launch all its ICBMs because some shitty rusted out BTR rolled over the border into Estonia, but the line has been drawn. If Russia's leadership chooses to cross the line knowing it could end human civilization, it once again raises the question of why they are running a country instead of being sectioned in a psychiatric ward (although I guess the real answer there is that they aren't politically advocating for the rights of persecuted racial minorities).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,748
3,272
118
Country
United Kingdom
US nuclear doctrine is literally built around anticipating the possibility of an attack by a nuclear weapons state against a non-nuclear NATO ally. That is why it is different from the Russian nuclear doctrine. The US would not be existentially threatened by Russia deciding to nuke the city of Riga, but since US nuclear doctrine allows for first use in the context of deterrence, anyone planning on bombing Riga now has to consider the likelihood of US retaliation. That is how nuclear doctrines work. They aren't just an excuse for insecure leaders to show big dick energy, they are a public record of the lines that should be avoided at all costs.

If the Russian government decides to just ignore US nuclear doctrine because Latvia really needs to be part of the Russian empire again, then that falls into the category of insanity or incompetence. This isn't the cold war, and the US isn't going to launch all its ICBMs because some shitty rusted out BTR rolled over the border into Estonia, but the line has been drawn. If Russia's leadership chooses to cross the line knowing it could end human civilization, it once again raises the question of why they are running a country instead of being sectioned in a psychiatric ward (although I guess the real answer there is that they aren't politically advocating for the rights of persecuted racial minorities).
I acknowledge this, but if the US deployed nuclear weaponry in retaliation for a non-nuclear attack, that would also cross into the 'insanity or incompetence' categories.

They are neither necessary nor remotely proportionate to create a deterrent against non-nuclear, conventional military attack.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,487
5,866
118
US nuclear doctrine is literally built around anticipating the possibility of an attack by a nuclear weapons state against a non-nuclear NATO ally. That is why it is different from the Russian nuclear doctrine. The US would not be existentially threatened by Russia deciding to nuke the city of Riga, but since US nuclear doctrine allows for first use in the context of deterrence, anyone planning on bombing Riga now has to consider the likelihood of US retaliation. That is how nuclear doctrines work. They aren't just an excuse for insecure leaders to show big dick energy, they are a public record of the lines that should be avoided at all costs.
NATO is an alliance of free, independent states - most of which did not have nuclear power so who had the US nuclear power extended over them.

Russia doesn't have many allied nations, and as we can see, it doesn't actually give a shit about any of them so long as Russia is okay.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,414
1,033
118
Country
United Kingdom
I acknowledge this, but if the US deployed nuclear weaponry in retaliation for a non-nuclear attack, that would also cross into the 'insanity or incompetence' categories.
True.

That said, both US and NATO nuclear doctines explicitly state that the fundamental purpose of their nuclear weapons is deterrence.

While technically US and NATO doctrine doesn't explicitly rule out first use of nuclear weapons during a conventional war, if it's going to be weighed against the principle of deterrence then it's quite hard to think of a scenario in which that could happen. The biggest danger I can imagine is dual use weapons, but that goes for Russia as well since the Russian doctrine essentially says that it will treat any ballistic missile attack as a nuclear attack.

I don't see it happening. Russian generals love to go on state TV and talk about nuking Western Europe, but it's clearly a show for the home crowd. They're fat old men who want to keep living comfortably in the mansions they bought with bribes from defense contractors and commissions sold to to their incompetent friends. Frankly, NATO should be sending them medals for how many Russian soldiers they've killed.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,119
321
88
Well, they are certainly independent. And while there are problems, not least with press freedom or judical independence, in all three countries elections are still quite important and expected to be able to change the gouvernment.
 

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Aug 1, 2011
2,805
346
88
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
9,153
4,370
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male

Well shit guys they found the pentagon. WE ARE DOOMED!
Oh, shit, it's worse than that. They know about the White House. They know where the US President lives and works! That was our biggest military secret!

Clearly the result of Russian Witchcraft.
 
Last edited:

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
9,153
4,370
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
"We're also publishing the co-ordinates, just in case."
In case of what?!
What is the implied threat being given?
They're going to leave some flaming bags of poop on some doorsteps, of course. Assuming someone can pay for the doordash over there and if door dash accepts rubles

Best case, the Pentagon is willing to go over to Russia and pick up the flaming poop bags themselves instead of Russia trying to deal with the delivery fees.
 
Last edited: