The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
12 Reasons Russia Would Not Use Their Nukes In Retaliation (You Won't Believe #6
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 17th, 2018 2:58 PM Author: Bat shit crazy electric furnace chapel (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445616) |
Date: July 17th, 2018 2:58 PM Author: Cordovan motley ape house author: spaceporn2525 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445623) |
 |
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM Author: Glittery Party Of The First Part Striped Hyena (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446132) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 2:59 PM Author: Cream keepsake machete (guy too young to remember what the Fulda Gap is and when "No First Use" platform was debated at party conventions) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445636) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:01 PM Author: Bat shit crazy electric furnace chapel Russian party conventions? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445661) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:07 PM Author: Cream keepsake machete no so much (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445716) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:08 PM Author: spectacular lettuce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy,[2] arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option, in order to have a credible deterrent that could compensate for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in the Eurasian land mass.[3][4] In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge against first use of nuclear weapons made in 1982 by Leonid Brezhnev.[5] In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".[6] |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:15 PM Author: Cream keepsake machete correct. it's essentially the balancer against conventional disparity. Interestingly it wasn't even until the post-Vietnam mid-70s that we even contemplated matching the Soviets on a conventional basis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445813) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:44 PM Author: spectacular lettuce Now that we're well ahead on a conventional basis, they will similarly utilize nukes first. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446107) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:52 PM Author: Cream keepsake machete correct. best way to prevent territorial incursion. what's interesting is the chemical component. during the 70s (after we found out that most Soviet war plans included a significant chemical first strike), we were very explicit that any use of chemicals would result in immediate tactical nuke deployment against Red Army marshaling areas and supply dumps in the DDR (why wait until they were halfway across the german plain as the conventional scenario called for?).
now with Putin and friends using chemicals in Syria with no consequence, they may be rethinking that for their next offensive in Ukraine or the Baltics |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 4:03 PM Author: spectacular lettuce The problem is that WMDs are really bad for areas that you want to annex because you inherit a toxic wasteland. So I really wouldn't expect them to be used in Ukraine or the Baltics. In Syria, everyone used them because they're 'tards and don't care if they live in a toxic dump.
If you watch Russian debate shows and higher brow policy journals, you learn that the real reason Russia didn't do a full attack in Ukraine was the $$$s required to pour into it after they won. Annexing Crimea, for example, was brutally expensive. Not only did they have to invest to modernize horrible infrastructure, but suddenly they owed all the old people there Russian pensions (which are already a huge drain and much higher than in Ukraine). That is one big reason that despite Donbass asking to be annexed they refused.
Now imagine they had Ukraine and the Baltics. The budget would collapse. Especially since that would coincide with greater sanctions. Long story short, their ideal situation is just getting a "friendly" government in these places. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM Author: Zombie-like institution reading party In his autobiography Col. David Hackworth said that when his units did NATO exercises, the use of tactical nukes was a foregone conclusion since they knew they couldn't stop the mass of Soviet armor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446135) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:54 PM Author: Cream keepsake machete I don't think NATO could keep the Red Army east of the Rhine for more than 72 hours in a pure conventional setup pre-1984 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446222) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 4:06 PM Author: spectacular lettuce Of course not, but they never needed to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446336) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM Author: racy pozpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446136) |