I hope we stay out of it.
But, reports this morning are that Biden is working up to send 50,000 troops to sit in nearby Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Not good...
Printable View
I hope we stay out of it.
But, reports this morning are that Biden is working up to send 50,000 troops to sit in nearby Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Not good...
If this shit fails, many countries will get them self nuclear.
There are many many countries which are about 2.5 month away from getting one themselves. Allies and enemies.
Which ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPrena
Is the treaty even valid if they have not funded thier military to the levels specified in the treaty? So tired of wasting US treasure & blood for others that don't fight for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by clodhopper
Many countries probably WILL THINK that it is better to go nuclear than get invaded. It is all depends on how this rolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
Just off of my head....
East European and 1 or 2 former soviets.
Some eastern Asian countries near China and North Korea.
Countries which are more established financially and well diversified.
Countries which already has many nuclear power plants, and has enough reactor grade isotopes.
I read some articles that Ukrainian are regretting giving up nuclear.
India, Pakistan, Israel is one group to go nuclear.
Libya , Kazakhstan, Ukraine,Belarus, etc is one who went opposite.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ukra...&bih=667&dpr=3
I suspect Ukraine wishes right now they would have kept those nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPrena
Putin wouldn't be screwing with them if he knew they were equals.
And tactical/strategic nukes are a deterrent from an invasion like this [unless a country can neutralize launches].
Having nukes is one thing. Projecting the appearance that you would actually use them is another. Gotta make people think you either have big nutz or are nutz, otherwise it is not a deterrent.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
Supposedly there was some concern of some missing. SADM.
Thing about nukes is they're not like conventional bombs or missiles that can more or less sit on a shelf or in a bunker for decades and still work.
Nukes require periodic maintenance or they won't fission. The neutron generator (initiator) that provides the burst of neutrons to start the chain reaction has a relatively short half-life and needs to be changed out regularly. If they aren't, then what you have is not a nuclear weapon but a big, "dirty" conventional bomb.
(This is also the reason I don't get too worked up over the various "lost" nukes out there. Yes, we've lost a few, and so have the Soviets. But at this point, they're no longer nuclear weapons that can explode in a big mushroom cloud, they're just chunks of extremely poisonous metal buried deep in the ground. Even if they were to explode it would just create a contaminated zone a few thousand feet wide. Ditto for the "weapons stolen from the USSR before it collapsed" scenario. Sure, a terrorist could get his hands on some Plutonium but even if the sensitive triggering mechanism for the conventional explosive somehow survived, without that neutron generator it's just a big "dirty" bomb.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula...tron_initiator
I suppose a crude nuke could be an effective "last ditch" deterrent (assuming that the country that had them would actually be willing to use it) but ultimately the cost and complexity of nuclear weapons means that only the wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries can field them.
Of course, the bigger question is: Why is it the USA's responsibility to deter or thwart a Russian invasion of Ukraine?