Sidebar

Russia invades Ukraine - VI

  • Hi Guest, we are working on updating the site servers and software. We're also 'forcing' everyone to read and agree to our site privacy policy and terms of service. There are no significant changes to either of these but the terms page does clarify a few things that are mostly in the legalese. You can just click the checkbox for both and continue using the site as usual! We'll update you more on the site upgrades VERY soon! THANK YOU AS ALWAYS for supporting the site and being an active participant!
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bamaatthebeach

1st Team
Feb 27, 2019
625
702
117
Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
This last tweet of Kasparov: "Give jets, drones, & long-range weapons that allow Ukraine to strike at the source and protect their people, as
@AVindman
proposes. Announce the creation of humanitarian corridors in advance, areas under protection. Ukraine is not Putin's. Stop treating it like it is."

I agree. I wouldn't wish to be in the shoes of anyone in power now, but I would love to see Putin taken out, the sooner the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobtownK and crimsonaudio
4

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
10,831
16,782
337
Tuscaloosa
4Q Basket Case said:
Especially at an emotional level, I don’t disagree with your sentiments. But considering the 1,000-year downside of being wrong, it’s not an easy call either way.

That said, suppose Putin launches a tactical nuke. Be generous and assume it’s at an unpopulated area, just for demonstration that he’ll actually do it.
[edits for brevity]

What’s your response?

What, if anything, changes if any WMD of any description targets a center of population?

Dealing from the position of military strength we have, I have my own thoughts and am happy to share them. But I’d like to hear yours.
Click to expand...
Many of you know that one of my least favorite things on the planet is for people to throw rocks at proposals without offering any solutions of their own. To avoid violating my own pet peeve, I’ll offer the following:

We start with the status quo. We supply only expendable arms (i.e., not equipment such as tanks or APCs or airplanes or helicopters).

From that point, we escalate one step below what Putin does. For example, if he never uses WMDs (defined as nukes, germs or gas), we keep on keeping on with what we’re doing now.

If he lobs any WMD of any description into an unpopulated area, we start supplying equipment in addition to arms. If he lobs a WMD into a populated area, we supply arms, equipment, advisers and training.…but no WMDs.

If Putin launches a conventional missile into a NATO country, we start flying NATO planes, flown by NATO pilots, over Ukraine and destroy anything that moves in the Russian area, using only conventional weapons.

I could go on with scenarios of incremental escalation, but you get the idea.

Disagree all you want. I‘m all about a better solution. But if you disagree with the above, please offer a better alternative, and don’t simply point out the risks that such a plan entails — I know it’s risky. I just view it as less risky than the extremes of (1) doing nothing, and (2) launching the full fury of NATO, WMDs included.

There’s a fine line between showing a bully he can’t do whatever he wants vs. inciting a madman to do insane things. I’m trying to put myself in Biden’s shoes and walk that line.
 
Last edited:
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: PaulD and GrayTide
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

Suspended
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,281
362
Mountainous Northern California
4Q Basket Case said:
Many of you know that one of my least favorite things on the planet is for people to throw rocks at proposals without offering any solutions of their own. To avoid violating my own pet peeve, I’ll offer the following:

We start with the status quo. We supply only expendable arms (i.e., not equipment such as tanks or APCs or airplanes or helicopters).

From that point, we escalate one step below what Putin does. For example, if he never uses WMDs (defined as nukes, germs or gas), we keep on keeping on with what we’re doing now.

If he lobs any WMD of any description into an unpopulated area, we start supplying equipment in addition to arms. If he lobs a WMD into a populated area, we supply arms, equipment, advisers and training.…but no WMDs.

If Putin launches a conventional missile into a NATO country, we start flying NATO planes, flown by NATO pilots, over Ukraine and destroy anything that moves in the Russian area, using only conventional weapons.

I could go on with scenarios of incremental escalation, but you get the idea.

Disagree all you want. I‘m all about a better solution. But if you disagree with the above, please offer a better alternative, and don’t simply point out the risks that such a plan entails — I know it’s risky. I just view it as less risky than the extremes of (1) doing nothing, and (2) launching the full fury of NATO, WMDs included.

There’s a fine line between showing a bully he can’t do whatever he wants vs. inciting a madman to do insane things. I’m trying to put myself in Biden’s shoes and walk that line.
Click to expand...
Hard line to walk. You're right - criticizing is easy, dealing with it yourself is infinitely more complex and when the fate of the world is resting on your shoulders I imagine a lot of sleep is lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio, MobtownK and IM4UA
U

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,369
182
4Q Basket Case said:
Many of you know that one of my least favorite things on the planet is for people to throw rocks at proposals without offering any solutions of their own. To avoid violating my own pet peeve, I’ll offer the following:

We start with the status quo. We supply only expendable arms (i.e., not equipment such as tanks or APCs or airplanes or helicopters).

From that point, we escalate one step below what Putin does. For example, if he never uses WMDs (defined as nukes, germs or gas), we keep on keeping on with what we’re doing now.

If he lobs any WMD of any description into an unpopulated area, we start supplying equipment in addition to arms. If he lobs a WMD into a populated area, we supply arms, equipment, advisers and training.…but no WMDs.

If Putin launches a conventional missile into a NATO country, we start flying NATO planes, flown by NATO pilots, over Ukraine and destroy anything that moves in the Russian area, using only conventional weapons.

I could go on with scenarios of incremental escalation, but you get the idea.

Disagree all you want. I‘m all about a better solution. But if you disagree with the above, please offer a better alternative, and don’t simply point out the risks that such a plan entails — I know it’s risky. I just view it as less risky than the extremes of (1) doing nothing, and (2) launching the full fury of NATO, WMDs included.

There’s a fine line between showing a bully he can’t do whatever he wants vs. inciting a madman to do insane things. I’m trying to put myself in Biden’s shoes and walk that line.
Click to expand...
You must be joking. If Russia uses a WMD against anyone then they should be toast. Period. Screw increments.
I also believe that it is in our agreement with Ukraine that we made to get them to give up their nukes. If anyone uses a nuke against them we are obligated to defend them. So far Biden has seemed willing to comply with all previous treaties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Bama and MobtownK
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

|

Latest threads

Top Bottom