Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
'You' aren't.

You are assuming a lot on the part of Russians, and Chinese, and Iranians.

... wtf.

Considering you have little clue about how MAD woirks, instead claiming to argue for half the threat that it's being overcome was the goal of the Russians, I find it very odd that you pretend to lecture on what the terms mean.

Does that sentence even make grammatical sense, let alone logical?

[Kuciwalker]

Provide a realistic situation in which our decision would or should be different if our opponent can kill 100 million of our citizens or 290 million.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

when they are so close to crossing the aisle and joining Europe

Bull****.

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

If there is none then the nuclear abilities of France and Russia and China are equivalent.

xpost

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


... wtf.

Here's a shock for you. Not everyone thinks like a virgin American college student.

I know, it must be a shock, but there it is.

Considering you have little clue about how MAD woirks, instead claiming to argue for half the threat that it's being overcome was the goal of the Russians, I find it very odd that you pretend to lecture on what the terms mean.

Does that sentence even make grammatical sense, let alone logical?

Tell us when you want to make any sort of sense at all.

Reading comprehension can be added to your weaknesses. We can excuse you. It isn't a formula. You have to understand commas and their place in English grammar.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Here's a shock for you. Not everyone thinks like a virgin American college student.

Why would I assume everyone is something I'm not? Actually, I was assuming we were talking about policy decisions of the United States, not Iran.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If there is none then the nuclear abilities of France and Russia and China are equivalent.

xpost

Hmm, let's see, you could 'win' an exchange with China?

Large parts of the US would be untouched, along with most of the rest of the world, while China would be a total smoking ruin. This assumes Ivan sits still.

There is no M in China's AD. It's not MAD because they lack the ability to destroy. Does that mean that you should pick a fight with China? Hell, no. But it also doesn't put China in the same league with Russia.

Think about it. The Northern Hemisphere completely depopulated, vs several cities ruined. Can you see the difference?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why would I assume everyone is something I'm not? Actually, I was assuming we were talking about policy decisions of the United States, not Iran.

You assume all along the line that people from other countries, with other histories, and other sensibilities will think just like you.

You're cute in your presumptions. Scary, but cute.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmm, let's see, you could 'win' an exchange with China?

Large parts of the US would be untouched, along with most of the rest of the world, while China would be a total smoking ruin. This assumes Ivan sits still.

And you accuse me of being reckless.

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

There is no M in China's AD. It's not MAD because they lack the ability to destroy. Does that mean that you should pick a fight with China? Hell, no. But it also doesn't put China in the same league with Russia.

What's your criterion for destruction? 90% dead? 99% dead? 99.9% dead?

Think about it. The Northern Hemisphere completely depopulated, vs several cities ruined. Can you see the difference?

Provide a realistic situation in which our decision would or should be different if our opponent can kill 100 million of our citizens or 290 million.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You assume all along the line that people from other countries, with other histories, and other sensibilities will think just like you.

No.

[notyoueither]

Yes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmm, let's see, you could 'win' an exchange with China?

Large parts of the US would be untouched, along with most of the rest of the world, while China would be a total smoking ruin. This assumes Ivan sits still.

And you accuse me of being reckless.

You're the dufus who has been arguing about defeating MAD.

What, you think a couple cities lost isn't good odds for the total destruction of the enemy?

WTH do you think MAD could ever be overcome between the Russians and US, and how is it even worth discussing since it would never be possible to avoid the loss of at least a few cities even if some sort of defence were possible?

Get it straight. What the hell do you want to argue?

[Kuciwalker]

You're the dufus who has been arguing about defeating MAD.

You have no argument anymore and now you are just lying about things anyone who's read the thread can see.

What, you think a couple cities lost isn't good odds for the total destruction of the enemy?

No, not at all. I'd be worried if you believed that, except you live in a country with practically no importance (though maybe more than Russia).

Get it straight. What the hell do you want to argue?

This is the third time I've posted this, I believe:

The ability to eliminate an enemy's ability to retaliate breaks MAD. Russia cannot do this, therefore MAD is unbroken. Therefore our nuclear strategic position vis-a-vis Russia is no different than our position vis-a-vis China or even France [because it doesn't matter if they can kill 100 million or 290 million people]. Russia has no global strategic relevance apart from its nuclear arsenal. Therefore, Russia is at most as globally relevant as China or France.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Provide a realistic situation in which our decision would or should be different if our opponent can kill 100 million of our citizens or 290 million.

After a prolonged period of tension the PRC invades Taiwan.

There were two American carrier groups in the area. They no longer exist as the Chinese saw them as threats even though the American carriers had yet to be committed.

You think thoughts of missiles flying would not cross the mind of the resident ofr the White House? Do you think that the lack of ability of the Chinese to hit back would not factor in? In fact, China could indeed be hit bad enough to maybe not retaliate, especially if their two SSBNs were already being tracked. They die first, just after the carriers go down.

The point is it is conceivable to 'win' an enchange with China. It is not with Russia. The difference is quantity and quality of weapons. China has simply never been part of the MAD equation, and neither has France nor Britain.

MAD is the preserve of the US and Russia, and always has been.

[Kuciwalker]

Demonstrate that one of those logical steps is flawed. If you want to challenge the assertion that it doesn't matter if they can kill 100 million or 290 million, provide a realistic situation in which we should do something different if they can only kill 100 million.

xpost