World War III Updates

[ClearedHot]

Great decision by Obama...I am sure none of that cash was used to buy/build drone/cruise missiles/TBMs that were shot at Israel last night.

 

 

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, Zero said:

Re-sharing these gems:

 

[Majestik Møøse]

China needs oil a lot more than they need a rock with angry Taiwanese on it. WW3 was always going to start over Middle East oil. CENTCOM with Chinese characteristics.

[gearhog]

 

It's been decided. Ukraine is failing. We're going to war.

General Christopher G. Cavoli is the CC of the European Command and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

Here are some of his remarks at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing.

 

Tuberbille: "It's obvious to me just being in all these meetings uh and hearings not just you of other people we're getting ready to go to war with Russia uh have we got a game plan for that for how many people we're going to need on the ground young men and women from uh United States when this war starts?"

Cavoli: "Sir, we have standing operational plans um around the globe for a variety of problems."

Tuberbille: "How many do you think it's going to take for us to beat Russia? Because Ukraine can't beat Russia."

Cavoli: "Sir, can I take that in close session please, sir?"

Tuberville: "Okay, uh what about the budget? 60 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket to the American taxpayer we're 35 trillion in debt what is this going to cost us I know y'all surely put the numbers to that uh of of our conflict versus uh Russia when this all starts have we done that?"

Cavoli: "Sir, um the number I would have to talk in close session about also um but I agree if we were to go to war with Russia in uh um it would the the money we're spending in Ukraine would be a drop in the bucket."

Tuberville: "Yeah, where where are we going to get our energy from uh when this starts because they don't have any in Europe uh uh the Saudis I don't know where they're going to help us out uh we're going to have to buy it from Ukraine I guess I mean Iran CU we're not pumping the oil and gas that we need where we going to get our fuel for a war like this."

Cavoli: "Sir, that that's outside of my area of expertise but I'm sure I can get you the answer."

Tuberville: "Do we have enough right now uh you know to get a war started uh on the ground there for our troops?"

...

Cavoli "I would agree with that for instance the US Army is now 450,000 when I joined it it was 785,000.

Tuberville: "With Ukraine um fighting right now as they are uh do we have any count of numbers of how many soldiers that they have actually fighting uh that they have in their military against Russia?"

Cavoli: "It's between 900,000 and a million right now"

Tuberville: "How about Russia? How many they have uh deployed uh within Ukraine not not on the borders but how many do they have deployed in Ukraine?"

Cavoli: "Inside the country 470,000 outside the country more and then they have the rest of their military"

Tuberville: "Yeah my understanding is after the uh Massacre they have been growing at 40,000 uh soldiers a month that are volunteering for the military.is is that pretty good Intel or not?"

Cavoli: "I'm tracking 30,000 but yes, the size of the Russian military is bigger today than it was when the war started and it's bigger today than when the massacre started."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18 by gearhog

[Danger41]

If you think Tommy Tuberville will make that decision, we really are fucked. And hearing a high ranking GO actually be honest about costs, troop numbers, etc is a nice departure from the Afghanistan hearings.

[Lord Ratner]

I will start by saying that I hate that news outlets are using the term "Russian friendly Republicans."

 

I do not believe the Republicans against this funding are necessarily Russian friendly. I do however believe they are idiots.

 

Not a single one of them seems willing to answer a simple question. What do we do if Russia marches on Kiev? The argument before was that Russia was just taking historically Russian territory in East Ukraine with a majority Russian population. But now that Russia is advancing, and making some moves towards Kiev, he's the new position that Russia should be allowed to annex the entire country?

 

We have a group of phenomenally stupid legislators on both sides, and it now appears increasingly likely that we are in fact going to go to war. Would have been cheaper to just send them the money.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Russia should be allowed to annex the entire country?

At the end of the day, yes.  They aren't NATO.  This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process.

This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up.  This war will be fought economically.  Hopefully.

I really really hope.  Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb.  Sending more money/equipment is par for the course.  

Also Moldovia is fucked too.

Edited April 18 by busdriver

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, busdriver said:

At the end of the day, yes.  They aren't NATO.  This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process.

This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up.  This war will be fought economically.  Hopefully.

I really really hope.  Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb.  Sending more money/equipment is par for the course.  

Also Moldovia is fucked too.

So, I'm glad you are at least honest about this. Thank you.

 

The reason I am against allowing Ukraine to be taken, under your logic, is because I believe that *if* they truly want to take Ukraine, they will not stop at non-NATO countries. Wouldn't make much sense strategically. We're better off just starting the damn war now if that's the case. Unless of course the plan is to let them weaken their military by taking Ukraine and Moldova, at which point we immediately go in an crush them. But I'm positive that's not the plan.

 

And to be clear, my primary reason for supporting Ukraine hasn't changed. Sovereignty matters, and a stable world order is not possible if it is not enforced. And here we are.

 

I agree, the right answer is money and equipment, which we are somehow screwing up. And if we are willing to fund the perpetual Ukrainian insurgency, maybe it stays that way after Kiev falls. But it seems like Republicans have forgotten why the world needs police, and why it's better to be the ones in charge.

Edited April 18 by Lord Ratner

[tac airlifter]

9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Not a single one of them seems willing to answer a simple question. What do we do if Russia marches on Kiev? 

I’ll answer: We let it fall.

We have no treaty obligations, and although I’m opposed to Russian aggression I do not believe WW3 is the best option for our interests.

If they start some shit with a NATO ally then fights on.  

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

 believe that *if* they truly want to take Ukraine, they will not stop at non-NATO countries. Wouldn't make much sense strategically.........,.

And to be clear, my primary reason for supporting Ukraine hasn't changed. Sovereignty matters, and a stable world order is not possible if it is not enforced. And here we are.

I think you may be correct here, eventually.  But starting the war that will result in a nuclear exchange just to get it over with is dumb.  Next after Ukraine is Moldova, also a non NATO country.  Which means the rest of us have two countries to figure out what is actually required.  Which means we have a chance to avoid a nuclear war.  

All of this is how the cold war was fought.  The various proxy wars, two segregated economic spheres, etc. 

The cold war won't look the same the second time around (Putin also learned from glasnost and perestroika) but first step is understanding what is actually happening.  Most American pundits are still stuck in main character syndrome, they only disagree on whether it's a hero or anti-hero story.

I don't disagree with your primary thought, just the best way to fight this.

Edited April 18 by busdriver

[Lord Ratner]

50 minutes ago, busdriver said:

But starting the war that will result in a nuclear exchange just to get it over with is dumb.

Another area we disagree. The longer we wait, the weaker we will be for the actual fight. As our weak governance racks up increasingly absurd debt, the pressure to divert military spending to welfare programs will only grow. The longer we wait, the fewer war fighting experts we will have coupled with less and less modern military equipment to fight with. I still think we win based on geography and natural resources, but it'll cost more lives and treasure to wait.

 

Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus. Will we be better capable of fighting Russia today, or after another 10-20 years of peaceful decline?

 

I'll be honest. I don't care about you. Or me. I want what is best for my kids. I am not interested in adding WWIII to the list of hardships we are pushing off to the future.

 

Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

Edited April 18 by Lord Ratner

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The longer we wait, the weaker we will be for the actual fight. As our weak governance racks up increasingly absurd debt, the pressure to divert military spending to welfare programs will only grow. The longer we wait….

Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus.
 

Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

You think a Russian invasion of NATO is so likely that you’re willing to start war preemptively?  What evidence do you have that:

1. Russia would invade a NATO ally

2. US people support preemptive war, including a possible nuclear exchange, because of something that might happen

3. We could win

Asserting the uncertain as inevitable is the logical fallacy which led us into Iraq circa 2003.  In that case, our grasp of the facts and read on Saddam himself was completely wrong; it turned out we were fed BS by liars with an agenda (Curveball among others).  If we could do that over again knowing what we now know, none of us would choose to have invaded Iraq.  You’re smart, you see where I’m going with the comparison.

And the potential for a nuclear exchange should absolutely change the calculus, holy shit we’re talking about the possibility our cities get incinerated!  We need convincing answers to my 3 questions above or it would be wildly irresponsible to escalate preemptively.

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus.

Will we be better capable of fighting Russia today, or after another 10-20 years of peaceful decline

Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

If I'm missing any of your point above, apologies.

Nothing is 100%, granted.  But an actual war with Russia would be clubbing baby seals level, and an actual existential threat to "the Russian empire".  I think the chance Russia tosses nukes is extremely high.  Whether we throw them back is another question, but quite frankly irrelevant since Russian nukes are what will kill Americans.

You seem convinced of the fourth turning.  I am not.  Without going into that, I don't think America is in decline let alone circling the drain.  The next 10-20 years will see massive growth.  But I suspect there is zero chance we'll see eye to eye on this one at all.

I am not talking about appeasement at all, sending money and equipment to keep Ukraine armed and killing Russians and breaking their shit is good.  Complete economic isolation, not just sanctions.  Anyone that trades with them, isolation.  Etc.

I am saying a military solution now is the jumping to the worst conclusion, one that we have historical precedent at avoiding.  The entire cold war was fought via proxy and economics.  It was not appeasement.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

I am not talking about appeasement at all, sending money and equipment to keep Ukraine armed and killing Russians and breaking their shit is good.  Complete economic isolation, not just sanctions.  Anyone that trades with them, isolation.  Etc.

So you want us to no longer trade with China?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-defies-sanctions-make-russia-its-biggest-oil-supplier-2023-2024-01-20/

[busdriver]

56 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you want us to no longer trade with China?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-defies-sanctions-make-russia-its-biggest-oil-supplier-2023-2024-01-20/

If the choice is that or nuclear war, then yes.  It would hurt, but hurt them more than us.  

Based on your previous comments, I'd guess you think along the lines of: "we have a shit track record of not foreseeing blowback and we'd be better off just staying at home and leaving the world to it's own business."  France seems eager beaver to do something, which would no doubt drag us back into things.  So I assume you also want to withdraw from all treaties and alliances, which is a pre-requisite to staying at home.  It's also a pipe-dream, and will never happen.  Nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

There are no answers, only trade offs.  

[HeloDude]

7 minutes ago, busdriver said:

If the choice is that or nuclear war, then yes.  It would hurt, but hurt them more than us.  

Based on your previous comments, I'd guess you think along the lines of: "we have a shit track record of not foreseeing blowback and we'd be better off just staying at home and leaving the world to it's own business."  France seems eager beaver to do something, which would no doubt drag us back into things.  So I assume you also want to withdraw from all treaties and alliances, which is a pre-requisite to staying at home.  It's also a pipe-dream, and will never happen.  Nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

There are no answers, only trade offs.  

If it doesn’t directly benefit our citizens, then it’s not a priority before other things that do benefit our citizens.  If a treaty alliance is beneficial, then sure…but we are under no obligation to spend tens of billions of dollars we don’t have to fight for countries half way around the world.  

[busdriver]

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

If it doesn’t directly benefit our citizens, then it’s not a priority before other things that do benefit our citizens.  If a treaty alliance is beneficial, then sure…but we are under no obligation to spend tens of billions of dollars we don’t have to fight for countries half way around the world.  

Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding.  We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated.  So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem.  

If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say fuck that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation.  

If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding.  We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated.  So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem.  

If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say fuck that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation.  

If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.

Folks like me?  You mean people who actually want to put our own country and our own citizens first?  If that’s the case, then I’ll take that as a compliment.  Oh, and here should be your biggest concern for our country…

https://www.usdebtclock.org

[LookieRookie]

Israel attacked Iran again

 

 

[busdriver]

45 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Folks like me?  

Lighten up Francis.  People who ascribe to your line of thinking.  

[Biff_T]

5 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

Israel attacked Iran again

 

 

Nothing Uncle Bosey's nephew can't handle.  

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

You think a Russian invasion of NATO is so likely that you’re willing to start war preemptively?

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well.  

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

What evidence do you have that:

1. Russia would invade a NATO ally

What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them.

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

2. US people support preemptive war, including a possible nuclear exchange, because of something that might happen

I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion. 

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

3. We could win

Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please. 

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Asserting the uncertain as inevitable is the logical fallacy which led us into Iraq circa 2003.  In that case, our grasp of the facts and read on Saddam himself was completely wrong; it turned out we were fed BS by liars with an agenda (Curveball among others).  If we could do that over again knowing what we now know, none of us would choose to have invaded Iraq.  You’re smart, you see where I’m going with the comparison.

We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success. 

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

And the potential for a nuclear exchange should absolutely change the calculus, holy shit we’re talking about the possibility our cities get incinerated!  We need convincing answers to my 3 questions above or it would be wildly irresponsible to escalate preemptively.

Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End. 

Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox:

If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs. 

Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Edited April 19 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

If I'm missing any of your point above, apologies.

No worries, internetting is fraught with communication errors. Let's try anyways.

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

Nothing is 100%, granted.  But an actual war with Russia would be clubbing baby seals level, and an actual existential threat to "the Russian empire".  I think the chance Russia tosses nukes is extremely high.  Whether we throw them back is another question, but quite frankly irrelevant since Russian nukes are what will kill Americans.

"War with Russia" is a bit vague. We can have an entire war with Russia within the borders of Ukraine. That's very different than marching on Moscow, with very different responses from Russia. We try to occupy Russia, yeah, nukes go from "probably not" to "possibly." 

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

You seem convinced of the fourth turning.  I am not.  Without going into that, I don't think America is in decline let alone circling the drain.  The next 10-20 years will see massive growth.  But I suspect there is zero chance we'll see eye to eye on this one at all.

Definitely not circling the drain, or declining to ruin. We've been through 3 turnings already. We emerge stronger each time. I think you misunderstand the theory. 

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

I am not talking about appeasement at all, sending money and equipment to keep Ukraine armed and killing Russians and breaking their shit is good.  Complete economic isolation, not just sanctions.  Anyone that trades with them, isolation.  Etc.

I agree with this, however I believe that complete economic isolation will absolutely provoke a Russian response we can't ignore, and thus, escalate. The oil embargo on Japan is a good corollary. 

4 hours ago, busdriver said:

I am saying a military solution now is the jumping to the worst conclusion, one that we have historical precedent at avoiding.  The entire cold war was fought via proxy and economics.  It was not appeasement.

We agree on a lot, so I probably had you confused with some other argument on this board. I don't think it's time for American troops to kill Russians. But I absolutely do support Americans killing Russians in Ukraine if it looks like Russia is moving to occupy the entire country. A march on Kiev would be the red line. 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So you want us to no longer trade with China?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-defies-sanctions-make-russia-its-biggest-oil-supplier-2023-2024-01-20/

Another inevitability. The move to "re-shore" some critical manufacturing capabilities is the only good news these days. 

The sooner the better. Trading with China was the biggest mistake of the post-WWII era. We could have pulled the entirety of Latin America into the modern world, instead we funded the buildup of our biggest geopolitical adversary, and got an immigration crisis as a bonus. 

[Lawman]

Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding.  We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated.  So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem.  
If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation.  
If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.

This is where I think a lot of the argument to leave Ukraine to its self because they “aren’t NATO” is a bad faith argument for many of the people making it.

It would just be a goal post movement for a lot of people to say “oh the Baltics are NATO expansions so they don’t count” or some other self serving logic.

Deterrence only works if it’s credible, and repeatedly backing away from the table and folding (the way Obama did) does nothing to build that credibility. Trump was right for taking Merkle and others to task about funding their way, but a whole lot of people want to pretend NATO hasn’t started changing the course of the ship in terms of funding or hasn’t hit well above its weight in donating funds and weapons to Ukraine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk