there is only one way to find out.... not the option i'd pick...
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)
- Thread starter GOT_BUD?
- Start date
93% of BLM protests were peaceful. The 7% that weren't were largely due to adversarial cops instigating and attacking protesters. ie - police kettling protesters and then bombarding them with tear gas (tear gas is an illegal chemical weapon under international law).
the media manufactured your consent to agree with the state violating peoples first amendment rights to protest.
That's more or less my thinking. I mean it's one thing to launch nukes at an enemy on the other side of the world where your troops aren't and there is no risk to you from the fallout. It's a whole different matter though when the target is just across the border, you have more troops in harms way then the enemy and the fallout is just one stiff breeze from coming to your side of the border.
Then of course there's always that pesky little thing they call MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Is it something you would roll the dice on if you were in Putin's shoes? Also it wouldn't necesssarily be retaliation from the West. China's got nukes to and might not appreciate the risk of the fallout drifting their way or for that matter the risk that the might be the one's to retaliate. Also there is the question of which West or how far West. I mean it's not like the US is the only West that has nukes. Then there is the risk of the wild cards, like N. Korea that might see nuclear excchanges as the beginning of the end and might decide to launch a few nukes themselves just to prove to the world they can.
Now since you mentionedd it earlier, I'm guessing that you think if it's just a small tactical nuke the risk of it turning into anything bigger or for there to be negative consequences is small? Fact of the matter is so far tactical nukes have never been used anywhere in the world, beyond just the threat they might be used. The whole reason why nobody but the US has ever used nukes and even then it was just the two in Japan is because the impact of using nukes has much greater reach then the target site. That fear has kept the world from using the most dangerous weapons man has ever built, since those first two. Sure the risk from small yield tactical nukes would be much lower and more confined but the fear has been enough to keep even those from being used...so far.
Also you would need to consider, would those countries with nukes themselves want to let Russia get away with using tactical nukes with no conaequences? I mean to do that might make Russia feel like they can use them whenever they want on whoever they want, believing everyone else would be too afraid to do anything. Kind of like how when a bully beats up on a little kid openly because he knows everyone else will just stand around and watch because they're afraid they might get beat up next. Would you really want to risk sending that message to Russia?
i understand... the buildings i saw on fire, and the looting was all fake news...
I'm fairly confidentRussia still has the a fair number of nuclear weapons that are still operational. Probably not thee full amount you hear about when people talk about how man nukes various countries have. They do have a shelf life afterall and every nuclear capable country has had to throw away more nukes then they've ever launched. Not only that but I hear that over the past few years, due to all the sanctions, Russia hasn't been able to produce weapons like they used to and for the ones they have produced they've had to scavenge electrical componants from commercial electronics. I would like to think even Putin wouldn't risk what might happen if they launched a nuke using parts from a microwave or someone's boom box. The thing might accidentally go off at the launch site.
u think the russians give a shit about their troops.... putin doesn't give a rats ass..
Fortunately it's still the option nobody wants to pick, even Russia, otherwise somebody would have taken that gamble by now.
so putin using a nuke in ukraine will trigger MAD.... ??
i hope not... but if he did would the west retaliate??? as i said prev, i dunno, and hope i don;t find out...
certainly hope u are rite
I think he cares enough that he wouldn't want to risk his troops getting killed only to leave him defenseless if someone decided to retaliate. I also think he gives a rat's ass about what the Russian population might think or do if he started showing such disregard for his own people. You can keep people under control thru fear but just only so far or for so lang. Even rabbits have been known to fight back if they feel the threat they face is bad enough.
I hope not too. I have no idea if the west would retaliate or not. I think for the most part they wouldn't f they could help it but there are some leaders in the world that might decide to be just as reckless as Putin, if for no other reason then to maintain the appearence of superiority.
well then i guess 93% of the jan 6th protesters were peaceful, and the other 7% were due to adversarial cops...
Me too. For the most part I think I'm right but I do worry about places like N. Korea or maybe even Iran. I mean if Putin decided to be that reckless then why would anyone expect N. Korea or Iran to be more cautious?
the only reason i think (hope) is that nkorea and iran know they would be swashed like the fukin cockroaches they are...
Gee, just when you show a little bit of rational reasoning in the discussion of nukes, you then come out with such irrational reasoning as above. Unless of course you believe that the Jan 6th protesters were no better then BLM?
Well see that's just the thing when it comes to Nuclear War, everyone gets swashed away like cockroaches. When it comes to nuclear war there are no winners. Thats why Mutually Assured Destruction has worked to keep everyone in check so far. I mean it's all right there in the name, Mutually Assured Destruction.
How about we just forget about nukes for now and get back to Trump and Politics? What do you think about the RNC having Hulk Hogan as one of it's prime speakers? Do you think anyone thinks that Trump is trying to achieve Unity or that more people will vote for Trump because Hulk Hogan tore off his shirt and said "What are you going to do when Trump-amania runs wild on you"?
No more fake then the claim that all the Jan 6th protesters were peaceful.
