On 11/21/24 9:43 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 21.11.2024 18.09, Sawfish wrote:
Did I read the early reports right?
At first the report was that Russia launched an ICBM into Ukraine.
Later the changed to a theater-scope missile, but with MIRVs. Back in
the stone age I on worked on the launch executive system for US
MIRV'ed Minutemen. MIRVs are definitely a step up, no shit.
It's easy to read this: it's an escalation in response to Biden's OK
for Ukraine to use US short range ballistic missiles that were
subsequently fired into Russian territory.
The message is clear: it was multiple conventional independently
targeted warheads this time. We could have just as easily used small
nukes. Can you top *this*?
What difference does an ICBM make? They could just as easily put a
nucular warhead in a Kalibr if they have any left.
Not ICBM. IRBM with MIRVs.
How do you read this, fellow-sufferers?
Hot air.
But *how* hot?
Did I read the early reports right?
At first the report was that Russia launched an ICBM into Ukraine. Later
the changed to a theater-scope missile, but with MIRVs. Back in the
stone age I on worked on the launch executive system for US MIRV'ed Minutemen. MIRVs are definitely a step up, no shit.
It's easy to read this: it's an escalation in response to Biden's OK for Ukraine to use US short range ballistic missiles that were subsequently
fired into Russian territory.
The message is clear: it was multiple conventional independently
targeted warheads this time. We could have just as easily used small
nukes. Can you top *this*?
How do you read this, fellow-sufferers?
Well, the Russian ruble is plummeting ever rapidly so Putin's getting desperate. But if he was going to nuke I think he would have done it already. With their track record, they'd probably nuke St. Petersburg by accident.
Did I read the early reports right?At first the report was that Russia launched an ICBM into Ukraine. Later the changed to a theater-scope missile, but with MIRVs. Back in the stone age I on worked on the launch executive system for US MIRV'edMinutemen. MIRVs are definitely a step up, no shit.It's easy to read this: it's an escalation in response to Biden's OK for Ukraine to use US short range ballistic missiles that were subsequently fired into Russian territory.The message is clear: it was
Did I read the early reports right?
At first the report was that Russia launched an ICBM into Ukraine. Later
the changed to a theater-scope missile, but with MIRVs. Back in the
stone age I on worked on the launch executive system for US MIRV'ed Minutemen. MIRVs are definitely a step up, no shit.
It's easy to read this: it's an escalation in response to Biden's OK for Ukraine to use US short range ballistic missiles that were subsequently
fired into Russian territory.
The message is clear: it was multiple conventional independently
targeted warheads this time. We could have just as easily used small
nukes. Can you top *this*?
How do you read this, fellow-sufferers?
Show off. Typical Putin. I don't think he's gonna use nukes, it would
be just uncalled for and would quickly rid Russia of any remaining
"friends". Might force Nato to actually take part.
I tend to agree, but it might also tear NATO apart. I think it's very unlikely that the US will go to nuclear war over Ukraine. Some NATO
members might--maybe not France or Britain, but it would put a real
strain in NATO--which loves to huff-and-puff.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:to anything.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 21.11.2024 klo 20.50:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
On 21.11.2024 19.48, Sawfish wrote:> On 11/21/24 9:43 AM, Pelle
Svanslös wrote:>> On 21.11.2024 18.09, Sawfish wrote:>>> Did I read
the early reports right?>>>>>> At first the report was that Russia
launched an ICBM into Ukraine. >>> Later the changed to a
theater-scope missile, but with MIRVs. Back in >>> the stone age I
on worked on the launch executive system for US >>> MIRV'ed
Minutemen. MIRVs are definitely a step up, no shit.>>>>>> It's easy
to read this: it's an escalation in response to Biden's OK >>> for
Ukraine to use US short range ballistic missiles that were >>>
subsequently fired into Russian territory.>>>>>> The message is
clear: it was multiple conventional independently >>> targeted
warheads this time. We could have just as easily used small >>>
nukes. Can you top *this*?>>>> What difference does an ICBM make?
They could just as easily put a >> nucular warhead in a Kalibr if
they have any left.> > Not ICBM. IRBM with MIRVs.> >>>>> How do you
read this, fellow-sufferers?>>>> Hot air.> > But *how* hot?Hot enuff
to appear tough for the homies. And perhaps ride to the sunset in
Jan having outlast the aggression by the
Westskies.https://www.thetimes.com/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F705880f0-a786-11e6-b67a-719634415da0.jpg?crop=1429%2C804%2C39%2C24&resize=1200I hear (someone in) Russia considers the UK as a combattant. That won't lead
So what will you say when Trump stops the war?
At this point, that would be awesome. Depending on terms of
peace... and how lasting it would be.
I wouldn't mind some economic trade with the devil to prop up Finnish
stock market...
If it goes like the good old times, US will piss on Ukraine on
negotiation table, as they did to Finland & East Europe.
Let's hope Finland gets booted out of NATO ASAP.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Did I hurt your feelings?
Not really, but Finland seems better as a speedbump for Putin than
something the productive members of NATO should help defend.
On 11/21/24 5:06 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 22.11.2024 klo 2.21:
Show off. Typical Putin. I don't think he's gonna use nukes, it
would be just uncalled for and would quickly rid Russia of any
remaining "friends". Might force Nato to actually take part.
I tend to agree, but it might also tear NATO apart. I think it's very
unlikely that the US will go to nuclear war over Ukraine. Some NATO
members might--maybe not France or Britain, but it would put a real
strain in NATO--which loves to huff-and-puff.
Yes, I don't think anyone would go to nuclear war against Russia over
couple tactical nukes. Probably not over a bigger one either...
although world would go absolutely crazy.
Yep.
The bottom line is that it would make no sense for NATO members, and especially US, to respond to an attack on a non-NATO nation in pretty
much the same way they would if the attack was on a NATO nation.
And let's be real, now. Not all NATO members are created equal, I
suspect. To the US, the UK comes first and foremost, then
France/Germany, and I think it sorta slides after that.
I'm positing that in actual practice, push comes to shove over *NUKES*,
the US would not launch ICBMs/subs/intermediates in east Europe for some
of the NATO nations if they were the targets of a first strike with IRBM
or ICBM with low yield warheads. E.g., Turkey, Romania, Hungary etc. are
not equal to Spain/Italy/Sweden.
What do you think, TT?
I was thinking that maybe Nato / USA would discuss it for a while and
at best flush the bombers & target Russian troops on Ukrainian soil.
Perhaps claim air space only. I don't think Nato would agree on war
action against Russian troops on Ukrainian ground.
So it would be US & Britain - maybe others - to attack those Russian
troops... countries which also have nukes. Anyway, WW3 could be close.
In a way nuclear nations could do anything, if they had enough balls,
since Russia can't nuke a nuclear state... or in principle a nato
state for that matter.
Would be possible that Nato would break up. Not sure how Putin's
bestie, Trump, would fit in the pic...
Emotions would fly high, stock markets would crash/close and toilet
paper would have to be rationed again. Would be way worse than Cuban
missile crisis.
Boy, I don't know. I was about 14-15 or so, and full adults were soiling their undies the whole time, as I recall.
It was real scary...
Effects to nth degree if large warhead was used. That will not happen.
Tactical, unlikely but not totally out of the question. Anyway, Putin
will wait what Trump does, and Russia is not doing that bad at
battlefield at the moment.
Zelensky may be sort of correct, this constant reminder of nukes is
some sort of sign of desperation/weakness... and more likely just a
coldly calculated move to scare the west off from giving "too much" aid.
Oh yes, I have previously claimed that Putin's generals would execute
the man before obeying a nuke order. Not that certain any more, maybe
he has fired some generals...
Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on both sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.
Though Russia survived only due to American aid via Lend-Lease.
Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on both sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.
On 22.11.2024 3.28, Sawfish wrote:> Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on both > sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.Putin set up the red line before. "No long range missiles, or else". Longrange missiles were fired, the "else" never came. Instead, a ballistic dud accompanied with a memo, "it's not what you think it is!", did.I see it as dismantling the red line. "Fire!"-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the
Pelle Svansls <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:rrange missiles were fired, the "else" never came. Instead, a ballistic dud accompanied with a memo, "it's not what you think it is!", did.I see it as dismantling the red line. "Fire!"-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the
On 22.11.2024 3.28, Sawfish wrote:> Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on both > sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.Putin set up the red line before. "No long range missiles, or else". Long
Some red lines are truly red. Even if they don't seem like that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-red-line-on-ukraine-what-it-means.html
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:51:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis<skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:>Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r>> On 22.11.2024 3.28, Sawfish wrote:> Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on bothwhat you think it is!", did.I see it as dismantling the red line. "Fire!"-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional>>>>Some red lines are truly red. Even if they don't seem like that.>>>https://www.
sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.Putin set up the red line before. "No long range missiles, or else". Long range missiles were fired, the "else" never came. Instead, a ballistic dud accompanied with a memo, "it's not
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:51:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:range missiles were fired, the "else" never came. Instead, a ballistic dud accompanied with a memo, "it's not what you think it is!", did.I see it as dismantling the red line. "Fire!"-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
On 22.11.2024 3.28, Sawfish wrote:> Really hard to say, but what's clear is that this saber-rattling on both > sides, with all the male gorilla posturing, is a clear escalation.Putin set up the red line before. "No long range missiles, or else". Long
"During their call, Putin told Biden that Ukraine’s bid to join NATO
Some red lines are truly red. Even if they don't seem like that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-red-line-on-ukraine-what-it-means.html
must be denied in return for assurances that Russian troops would not
carry out an attack. Ukraine has sought acceptance into the alliance
since 2002."
As a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, Russia had already given
its assurance to respect Ukraine's borders. Seems there is little
point in signing any greements with Russia whatsoever, as they always
renege on them.
YoYeah, deals with Russia are not worth the paper...Which makes the peace deal even more difficult.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
YoYeah, deals with Russia are not worth the paper...Which makes the peace deal even more difficult.
Can this get any dumber, lol?
Hahaha
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
YoYeah, deals with Russia are not worth the paper...Which makes the peace deal even more difficult.
Can this get any dumber, lol?
Hahaha
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 233:49:51 |
| Calls: | 9,612 |
| Files: | 13,686 |
| Messages: | 6,155,591 |
