Message from @Jeremy

Discord ID: 621050701744832535


2019-09-10 18:27:28 UTC  

You also have secondary and third-strike options.

2019-09-10 18:27:44 UTC  

But, that's neither here, nor there. It doesn't matter. No one will use nukes, period.

2019-09-10 18:27:51 UTC  

The 'Satan' missiles are rumoured to be the best in service.

2019-09-10 18:28:23 UTC  

Rumours

2019-09-10 18:28:31 UTC  

>Nato analysts

2019-09-10 18:28:53 UTC  

Links?

2019-09-10 18:28:56 UTC  

They're also upgrading their arsenal whereas the Americans are quire stagnant

2019-09-10 18:29:01 UTC  

Russia is no where near the economic power it once was anyway. It's all show and very little muscle compared to the rest of the world. China is the real threat in a nuclear war.

2019-09-10 18:29:17 UTC  

There won't ever be a nuclear war

2019-09-10 18:29:17 UTC  

Lmao

2019-09-10 18:29:52 UTC  

Well, that's debateable. Regimes can become pretty suicidal if they are desperate.

2019-09-10 18:29:56 UTC  

Yeah world powers want to rule the planet not blow it up

2019-09-10 18:29:59 UTC  

Give pictures 😩

2019-09-10 18:30:31 UTC  

Their most recent tests ended with nuclear fallout over their cities, with spikes in radiation in Sweden.

2019-09-10 18:30:35 UTC  

awww blow it up wat cooler

2019-09-10 18:31:05 UTC  

Well, it's a simple matter of self-interest, Flavius.

2019-09-10 18:31:51 UTC  

As much as the Communists espouse collectivist ideology, self-preservation exists irrespective of their conjecture.

2019-09-10 18:32:18 UTC  

Arguably, it is self-interest driving their leadership forward anyway.

2019-09-10 18:33:04 UTC  

The possibility of total war isn't there today. Thus they will not be used.

2019-09-10 18:33:45 UTC  

Of course not.

2019-09-10 18:34:21 UTC  

The only way I see it being used is via an asymmetrical threat/adversary.

2019-09-10 18:34:58 UTC  

That doesn't mean such Individual(s) can't be backed by a foreign power, however.

2019-09-10 18:35:02 UTC  

So, keep that in mind.

2019-09-10 18:35:25 UTC  

Ok, what would happen if Russia did the equivalent of pearl harbour? Would the US respond with conventional warfare? Smaller missiles? Because they could flatten Russia in that department too, leaving Putin with the option of nuclear war vs being deposed and probably killed.

2019-09-10 18:35:32 UTC  

"if Russia did the equivalent of pearl harbour"

2019-09-10 18:35:34 UTC  

They wouldn't.

2019-09-10 18:35:40 UTC  

So it's pointless to speculate.

2019-09-10 18:35:42 UTC  

That's the most likely use scenario to occur, which is rather unfortunate as the outcome won't be what they expect, given it'd still end up with their annihilation.

2019-09-10 18:35:48 UTC  

But..

2019-09-10 18:35:54 UTC  

It depends on what happened

2019-09-10 18:36:04 UTC  

If nuclear weapons were used, then the US would likely retaliate with the same

2019-09-10 18:36:20 UTC  

If it were a conventional attack, then the US would do the same

2019-09-10 18:36:22 UTC  

Japan did. Japan attacked an enemy it knew it could not ever hope to defeat. and it did so unprovoked.

2019-09-10 18:36:28 UTC  

it doesn't have to be rational

2019-09-10 18:36:28 UTC  

Call in NATO and begin an air-war

2019-09-10 18:36:33 UTC  

That is, my reference to using an asymmetrical means of payload delivery, whether through a state-sponsored organization of terror or some loose assets of a foreign power.

2019-09-10 18:36:39 UTC  

Japan attacking the US WAS rational.

2019-09-10 18:36:56 UTC  

in what possible way LOL

2019-09-10 18:37:05 UTC  

Right.

2019-09-10 18:37:05 UTC  

They thought they could win with Pearl Harbor