\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

12 Reasons Russia Would Not Use Their Nukes In Retaliation (You Won't Believe #6

...
pearly comical codepig yarmulke
  07/17/18
author: spaceporn2525
zombie-like charcoal telephone ticket booth
  07/17/18
...
Galvanic Pervert Regret
  07/17/18
(guy too young to remember what the Fulda Gap is and when &q...
Olive Slippery Tanning Salon
  07/17/18
Russian party conventions?
pearly comical codepig yarmulke
  07/17/18
no so much
Olive Slippery Tanning Salon
  07/17/18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use NATO has repea...
Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams
  07/17/18
correct. it's essentially the balancer against conventional ...
Olive Slippery Tanning Salon
  07/17/18
Now that we're well ahead on a conventional basis, they will...
Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams
  07/17/18
correct. best way to prevent territorial incursion. what's...
Olive Slippery Tanning Salon
  07/17/18
The problem is that WMDs are really bad for areas that you w...
Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams
  07/17/18
In his autobiography Col. David Hackworth said that when his...
Low-t station haunted graveyard
  07/17/18
I don't think NATO could keep the Red Army east of the Rhine...
Olive Slippery Tanning Salon
  07/17/18
Of course not, but they never needed to.
Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams
  07/17/18
...
Zippy insecure location generalized bond
  07/17/18


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 2:58 PM
Author: pearly comical codepig yarmulke



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445616)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 2:58 PM
Author: zombie-like charcoal telephone ticket booth

author: spaceporn2525

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445623)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM
Author: Galvanic Pervert Regret



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446132)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 2:59 PM
Author: Olive Slippery Tanning Salon

(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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:01 PM
Author: pearly comical codepig yarmulke

Russian party conventions?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445661)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:07 PM
Author: Olive Slippery Tanning Salon

no so much

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445716)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:08 PM
Author: Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams

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]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36445736)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:15 PM
Author: Olive Slippery Tanning Salon

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:44 PM
Author: Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:52 PM
Author: Olive Slippery Tanning Salon

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 4:03 PM
Author: Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM
Author: Low-t station haunted graveyard

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:54 PM
Author: Olive Slippery Tanning Salon

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 4:06 PM
Author: Razzle-dazzle bat-shit-crazy laser beams

Of course not, but they never needed to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446336)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 17th, 2018 3:46 PM
Author: Zippy insecure location generalized bond



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4028463&forum_id=2#36446136)