12 Reasons Russia Would Not Use Their Nukes In Retaliation (You Won't Believe #6
| nudist demanding address | 07/17/18 | | Sepia locale boiling water | 07/17/18 | | talking multi-colored nowag | 07/17/18 | | Swashbuckling patrolman range | 07/17/18 | | nudist demanding address | 07/17/18 | | Swashbuckling patrolman range | 07/17/18 | | bipolar wild puppy | 07/17/18 | | Swashbuckling patrolman range | 07/17/18 | | bipolar wild puppy | 07/17/18 | | Swashbuckling patrolman range | 07/17/18 | | bipolar wild puppy | 07/17/18 | | galvanic library gunner | 07/17/18 | | Swashbuckling patrolman range | 07/17/18 | | bipolar wild puppy | 07/17/18 | | abusive sanctuary | 07/17/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 3:52 PM Author: Swashbuckling patrolman range
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446210) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2018 4:03 PM Author: bipolar wild puppy
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446312) |
|
|