No it wouldn't. It would just escalate and start ww3.It would stop Russia if they joined NATO.
Because they have shown thay can not face a peer foe
No it wouldn't. It would just escalate and start ww3.It would stop Russia if they joined NATO.
Because they have shown thay can not face a peer foe
He is correct about Russia's armed forces having degenerated into an underequipped, half-trained joke, though. This whole conflict has exposed them as being a house of cards with a veneer of steel.No it wouldn't. It would just escalate and start ww3.
No it wouldn't. It would just escalate and start ww3.
He is correct about Russia's armed forces having degenerated into an underequipped, half-trained joke, though. This whole conflict has exposed them as being a house of cards with a veneer of steel.
What evidence do you have that Putin, with his nukes, would back down to an escalation?That's a pretty bold assertion. What do you have to back it up?
He didn't nuke anyone when Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO.What evidence do you have that Putin, with his nukes, would back down to an escalation?
He wasn't at war with Finland and Sweden.He didn't nuke anyone when Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO.
A country also can't join NATO if there are land disputesHe wasn't at war with Finland and Sweden.
Go tell that to the person I was responding to, who said "It would stop Russia if they joined NATO."A country also can't join NATO if there are land disputes
I thought you were meaning before the war.Go tell that to the person I was responding to, who said "It would stop Russia if they joined NATO."
I'll wait a minute for you to realize who said that and started this line of discussion.
If nukes fly no one wins and everyone loses. The Poles wouldn't be bragging. They'd be searching through a radioactive wasteland for survivors ... just like everyone else who got dragged into a nuclear exchange.I thought you were meaning before the war.
Now, it would STILL end the war because then NATO would get invovled and they would have no forces left by the end of the month and Poland would be bragging
If nukes fly no one wins and everyone loses. The Poles wouldn't be bragging. They'd be searching through a radioactive wasteland for survivors ... just like everyone else who got dragged into a nuclear exchange.
No, everyone loses. If Indianapolis gets nuked the US loses four interstates, several airports, and, IIRC pretty much all of the high capacity railroad lines between Lake Michigan and the Ohio River.Everyone in the cities lose, The west would probably benefit from fewer urbanites in the long term.
No, everyone loses. If Indianapolis gets nuked the US loses four interstates, several airports, and, IIRC pretty much all of the high capacity railroad lines between Lake Michigan and the Ohio River.
After that getting something from New England to somewhere West of the Mississippi (or vice-versa) means taking "the long way round".
The problem is the range on radiation. Even though I don't live in a big city, I am close enough that if the nearest big city to me is nuked, I will probably get 1st degree burns and die of cancer in 20-30 years (according to nuke calculator apps I used).Everyone in the cities lose, The west would probably benefit from fewer urbanites in the long term.
The problem is the range on radiation. Even though I don't live in a big city, I am close enough that if the nearest big city to me is nuked, I will probably get 1st degree burns and die of cancer in 20-30 years (according to nuke calculator apps I used).
But... there are actually more than 1 big cities surrounding me that would have that result, if all of them are nuked I would get repeat dosages.
One has to seek a pretty remote location.
... alternatively, I could get a house in a basement and live there. in that case I would be absolutely perfectly fine if the cities get nuked while I am in the basement.
or I could theoretically find a sufficiently remote farmhouse where I would be perfectly safe.
also if enough nukes hit nuclear winter will fuck us over too. Can't exactly grow food in nuclear winter.
As lovely as it would be to excise the cancerous tumors that the cities become, WW3 with nukes is not the way to do it.
If only one nuke is designated for each of the 200 largest cities in a US-Russia nuclear exchange both McAllen, Texas and Kineshma, Siberia get hit. I hadn't heard of either until a few minunes ago.One thing everyone seems to forget about this is that currently Russia and the US only have around 1,500 nuclear weapons each that are ready to launch which is a far cry from the arsenals of the cold war. While thats enough to seriously fuck things up its nowhere near enough for the seriously apocalyptic scenarios that could have unfolded in the 70's and 80's.
What evidence do you have that Putin, with his nukes, would back down to an escalation?
The part where you suggested that NATO breaks its own rules (country can not join if at war) and signs up to have Ukraine join while it is at war with Russia. Making NATO instantly at war with russia too. Which is exactly why NATO has the rule about not being at war with anyone while joiningWhat escalation?
An escalation from "peace" to "small war between two nations"Russia invaded another country. That's an escalation to 'hot war.'
To be fair. it is not just russia's.He is correct about Russia's armed forces having degenerated into an underequipped, half-trained joke, though.