American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

If I may shed some light on the numbers for Germany

Thank you that was very helpful context .

What I am sickened by is years of slaughter in a stalemate that Ukraine will inevitably lose.

What a noob.  Ever heard of Viet Nam?  How about the American revolution?  Such cowardice.  Imagine if it had been Trump and not Churchill calling the shots in 1940 Britain .

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

It is not only childish, it is extremely petty.

"Taking your bet would mean going another 100 pages over the parameters and then verifying your results (not that I have any reasons not to trust you  ). I bow to you; I’m not as crazy as you are.

I’m putting my money where my mouth is.
KoP, if you’re reading this, please PM me once the donation setup is complete. I want to be the first to contribute and pledge the initial $200.

I dare you to match my pledge.

---

Polish political writers were theorizing about joining NATO in the 70s if they ever got free from Russia as the only long term way for them to be safe.

So what? I don’t read Russian but I am sure Russian political writers were theorizing how glorious it would be for all the children to come home. SO WHAT!?!?!?

I know things are little hard for an armchair general to understand real military matters, but a little critical thinking goes a long way.
What technology makes it irrelevant where nukes are installed? Please tell.
By your "logic", are they all wasting money and effort to developed various missile defenses systems against missiles from different range and speed?
By your "logic", it makes no difference if you have 5 minutes or hours of warning.   
By your "logic", since there are nuke near you, it makes no difference if there are more, within 5 minutes range, to overwhelm the defense system.

Twisting words for sure.

Where did I say “Russia CURRENTLY could have a chance of defending if given more time.”!?

Nuclear exchanges don't necessarily mean total destruction
It's about deterrence and revenge. As irrational as it may seem, if I die, I don't want you to live either. 
The more warning you have to react, the greater your ability to retaliate and inflict more damage. 
The more time you have to react, the more lives you can save, even if it's just a small number. Preservation is a basic instinct
Furthermore, what is ‘a chance of defending’? You are trying to trap me into arguing for a 100% deterrence of all nukes." No one thinks that. While it may not be possible to prevent all nuclear attacks, a defense system can help limit the damage by intercepting some of the incoming missiles, reducing the overall impact.
The more capable your enemy is at defending against a nuclear attack through various means (even if it's not 100% effective), the more you will think twice before striking. This is the essence of mutual deterrence. If you believe you can wipe out the other side before they have a chance to retaliate, the balance of power will shift."

Don't twist my words.

I've answered the first part of this MULTIPLE TIMES. Russia has proven they don't care about conventional military bases on their border.

Wrong, You have proven nothing! Yet, you imply they care about NON conventional military bases on their border
CASE CLOSED - could have saved us thousands and thousands of words 

So again things you haven't responded to

Why? I don't answer stupid questions that give you excuses to go off on a wild tangent about something you know little about. However, I will answer you this one time, but I am not going another 100 pages with you moving the goalpost on a wild goose chase.

1-  no nuclear armed state has ever been seriously invaded. 

Never, until it does.
Bloody Joe has maintained the option to use nuclear weapons in "extreme circumstances" to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies. This policy allows for the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear threats. 

And we all know how we loved nuking Japan, not once but twice— when it wasn’t 'extreme circumstances,' but not even necessary. Who is the lunatic in the room?

Why I don't answer stupid questions just to have you go off on a tangent.

2 -  Russia has pulled troops and equipment AWAY from NATO borders. Including their new long and CLOSE border with NATO member Finland.

One problem with being an armchair general is that it's like playing Tic Tac Toe with yourself. Simple mind goes “Russia has pulled troops and equipment AWAY from NATO borders” must mean Russia doesn't care about conventional military bases on their border. It never entered your mind it was a maneuver following a massive military buildup near Ukraine's borders and in Crimea earlier that year.

Why I don't answer stupid questions just to have you go off on a tangent.

3 - NATO hasn't decimated army whiles its IN Ukraine. If NATO wanted to destroy Russias conventional army they have had a great opportunity. 

I don’t fully understand the question. You seem to imply that NATO troops are officially deployed in Ukraine as part of a combat mission. And there goes another armchair general’s blunder, not considering that the other side gets to fight back

…Whiles its IN Ukraine: There are no NATO combat troops actively fighting in Ukraine

Decimated: is quite strong and implies a significant destruction of forces.
Opportunity: The geopolitical implications of direct NATO involvement in combat against Russia would be significant. Anyway, we haven't got the go-ahead from the mafia boss.

Why I don't answer stupid questions just to have you go off on a tangent.

---

To sum up:

I think I have answered every question you have just posted. Please point out any questions I might have missed. Otherwise I have no interest in you twisting words, changing the goal post, or dreaming up more stupid question, how your livelihood depends on word count. I don't answer stupid questions just to have you go off on a tangent.

Still the same question

How did Game Theory factor into that? Does Game Theory operate with such wide margins, allowing claims to fluctuate between 75% to 90% and your claim of  "Impossible/Can't", all from a single source? How do you derive Game Theory from that? Is that the same funky formula how you prove Trump is worse than bloody jo on genocide? (is that also Game Theory?)

AND
I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Match my pledge of $200