Which is irrelevant. Launch on warning is not a first strike. It's getting your weapons off before they're destroyed on the ground by the strike that is already incoming.India subscribes to 'no first-strike' policy.What I'm saying is that if you have adequate second-strike capability there is no need for launch on warning. The only reason to launch on warning is if you think you won't have enough left to shoot back after riding out the incoming strike. We do not need a launch on warning policy so there's no reason to think we would take the risk of having such a policy.
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine for that matter.Who has Nato invaded?Ha,ha.I don't think you understand what NATO is. It's just a defens ..
In case of Ukraine, yes.That's a laugh. The conflict between Russian imperialism and western democracy only started in 2014. Thank you for the useless response.
It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
We will prefer to get a hit before we launch ours. India is big and populous. One hit would not matter much. How many will it kill - a million? We have 1,442+ m.Launch on warning is not a first strike. It's getting your weapons off before they're destroyed on the ground by the strike that is already incoming.
100kT is a tiddler by thermonuclear standards.A strike at the President's Palace in New Delhi will not affect us much, perhaps break the window glasses. We are 13 kms away.
It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
I think it is an issue for Moscow because they hope they can deter NATO from reacting to an attack on a non-nuclear power. Local nukes make that hopeless.Launch on warning (LOW), or fire on warning, is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation where a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack and while its missiles are still in the air, before detonation occurs. A launch on warning policy is NOT a first strike policy.India subscribes to 'no first-strike' policy.What I'm saying is that if you have adequate second-strike capability there is no need for launch on warning. The only reason to launch on warning is if you think you won't have enough left to shoot back after riding out the incoming strike. We do not need a launch on warning policy so there's no reason to think we would take the risk of having such a policy.
You seem to have lost the thread of thought. The US has no need to put nukes in Russia's back yard even in new NATO countries. Why? Because the conditions to fulfill "Mutually Assured Destruction" are fulfilled without moving any of our nukes. There is no need for Russia to feel nervous about nukes in their back yard because NATO nukes moved into Finland (or anywhere else) wouldn't actually escalate the threat to Russia. Why? Because, as we keep explaining to you, NATO is a defensive alliance and they also have a "no first strike" policy.
It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
?? And you want Ukraine to be defenseless?
Hmph. The ignorance of facts and counterfactual assertions that Aupy flaunts, have shown his comments on international affairs to be irrelevant and ignorance-based. I don’t think he has any real guns (position) to stick to. Just some guy content to swallow the tripe he is fed by his goobermint. No big deal.It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
?? And you want Ukraine to be defenseless?
I'm still waiting for Aupanyav managing to justify Russias attack.
I get the impression he accidentally said something foolish and now is just sticking to his guns, for no reason
There are many pro-Putler people outside of Russia who believe that if Ukraine gives up land, de-nazifies (WTF does that even mean?!) and de-arm completely that Russia will respect their future borders and never invade again. As for me, I'm hoping that my mother-in-law visit next week will be confined to only 3 days, rather than the usual 2 weeks. Hope isn't a great strategy!It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
?? And you want Ukraine to be defenseless?
I'm still waiting for Aupanyav managing to justify Russias attack.
I get the impression he accidentally said something foolish and now is just sticking to his guns, for no reason
Are you calling Tony Blinken a liar? Cause I distinctly remember him saying "Russia is isolated"There are many pro-Putin people outside of Russia
Russia had respected Ukro-borders for 25 years until they decided to go full nazi and ban russians.and de-arm completely that Russia will respect their future borders and never invade again
You agree then that Russia won’t honor a future peace agreement with an unarmed Ukraine correct?Russia had respected Ukro-borders for 25 years until they decided to go full nazi and ban russians.and de-arm completely that Russia will respect their future borders and never invade again
Russia always honorable treaty signer!You agree then that Russia won’t honor a future peace agreement with an unarmed Ukraine correct?Russia had respected Ukro-borders for 25 years until they decided to go full nazi and ban russians.and de-arm completely that Russia will respect their future borders and never invade again
Russia can throw more but they can't throw it as accurately and their guns are wearing out, making it even more inaccurate.This omits any comparison of our production vs their production.There is a bigger problem. Russia has shifted their economy into a wartime economy, and are producing weapons at a high rate. The west has not shifted their economies into wartime economies. If we did we could crush Russia like a bug. But we haven't. Yes, Russia is trashing their economy in order to win this war. But over time Russia will grind down Ukraine. The west has already sent anything that is redundant. We're now cutting into our preparedness storages. But we're not increasing production. If the current situations keeps going Russia will, over time win. In the long long term, Russia will of course run out of money, and then it'll just implode (as happened to Russia in WWI).
If our peacetime production exceeds their wartime production it doesn't matter that they are in a wartime economy.
But our side doesn't. Russia has both more artillery pieces as well as more ammo than Ukraine.
And artillery is important. Artillery is a lot more important than war movies have us believe. It is a problem.
If Ukraine starts getting and usinf F-16's to get air superiority ans start taking out Russian artillery. Then things will change. But we're not their yet
I seem to have lost the tab but there was a recent statement from one of Russia's top people that they intended to seize the rest of Ukraine after a cease-fire. Why in the world would Ukraine be willing to agree to a cease-fire that Russia doesn't intend to honor?White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.
US says India can spur end to Ukraine war as PM Modi, Putin flaunt ties
White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said India can play an important role in brokering peace in Ukraine by leveraging its historical ties with Russia.www.indiatoday.in
You have had wars with China because you dared defy them. Why is the Ukraine situation any different?I did, in my post https://iidb.org/threads/how-should...vasion-of-ukraine.25317/page-785#post-1197836You never managed to explain how NATO started the war.
"The tilt lead to a fall." Too much tilt resulted in a war. Ukraine should have avoided it.
There are many pro-Putler people outside of Russia who believe that if Ukraine gives up land, de-nazifies (WTF does that even mean?!) and de-arm completely that Russia will respect their future borders and never invade again. As for me, I'm hoping that my mother-in-law visit next week will be confined to only 3 days, rather than the usual 2 weeks. Hope isn't a great strategy!It means every country is concerned about safety of its borders. That is why we have armies and bombs as deterrents. So too is Russia.WTF does this even mean???
?? And you want Ukraine to be defenseless?
I'm still waiting for Aupanyav managing to justify Russias attack.
I get the impression he accidentally said something foolish and now is just sticking to his guns, for no reason
Questioning whether the victim was asking for it without any reason to think so. That's a position usually taken by abusers.Why was the woman beaten by her husband? Did she side with his enemies? Let us listen to the husband's story.Here’s your logic, if a woman is beaten by her husband and tries to get external help then she's to blame for the abuse.
Of course, physical violence is a crime.