defund the military

[Geronimo]

its just a cash cow for politicians and their donors and ALL we do with it is kill people in other countries

Keep the nukes, subs, and missiles and get rid of the rest of the navy and standing army

​
So originally it sounded like you were proposing nukes and their delivery systems. Nothing else. No mention of drones either.

What would the US do if after following your advice a conventional attack was launched against it followed by invasion of traditional US allies? Launch nukes? Wait for the traditional allies to surrender and then act surprised when the US is next? Nukes are only useful for deterring other nukes
​

nukes are a deterrent period

and our allies have them too

Which didn't address any of my reply. If nukes are all we had what happens after our allies are attacked? What is your plan if deterrence fails?​

Slowhand offered this simple gem of wisdom:

Having nukes as your only available response is a bad idea.

why?

​

Because it's either a bluff and someone will call your bluff, or it's not and instead of people occasionally suffering the hell of conventional war people will occasionally suffer the hell of nuclear attack or quite probably even global thermonuclear Holocaust. Was that too hard to understand Berz?
​

It aint a bluff, its the only available option by design. So what are they gonna call this bluff with? We'll nuke the invasion force if we dont destroy it with drones and missiles. Most of our stuff is not about defense, just offense.

They can call the bluff with whatever they want Berz. That's the problem. You inexplicably believe that because nukes, drones, missiles and subs would be the only cards in the US deck that a would-be attacker would know the US can't be bluffing and will be more deterred than if the US possessed a full range of military options. So the US is going to nuke an invasion force using its subs? When? When the force is on the high seas? How much of an invasion force would they need to just take a strategic location from the US? Will the US nuke it just off of its shores?

How has nuclear deterrent worked out for Russia? It wasn't a bluff right? They will really retaliate with the nukes when foreign countries take portions of their country that are temporarily nominally independent (because of evil foreign manipulation at a moment of naive weakness under Yeltsin) hostage with Nazi puppet governments installed with a coup. These foreign governments then force the nazi puppet government to commit genocide against the brave Russian populations opposed to the coup. nuclear deterrence is not a bluff so now Russia will really nuke those foreign countries in response. Doing so will be wise because relying on use of nuclear weapons for deterrence is proven effective and Russia is free to get rid of their conventional forces since nobody will mess with them as they have been doing the last 9 years with their nazi coup and nazi genocides of Russian speakers. These things definitely occurred and Russia definitely deterred them from happening because their proven nuclear deterrent which is not a bluff stops these things which definitely occurred.

What will this enemy use to call our bluff? I'd like to know how their conventional forces will be immune to our drones, missiles and nukes.

You forgot the subs from you OP and added drones. You offer this strawman that the objection to the OP stupid proposal is that we think potential adversaries are immune to drones, missiles and nukes. Also, You totally ignored my pointing out the obvious incompatibility and cognitive dissonance you reveal when you simultaneously hold that if a country has subs, nukes, drones and missiles at their disposal then they will deter all attacks and escape war while also holding that Russia (which has subs, nukes, missiles and drones) had a war forced upon it by Nazi/ neocons.
drones, missiles and nukes.

I don't know. How are the nazi/neocon forces immune to Russia's drones, missiles and nukes Berz?

Yup, you dont know. They're not immune, that was the point.​.

​​

If that "they're not immune" was the point who was claiming that any state or country anywhere in any hypothetical or historical context in this thread would in fact be immune to anything?

You claimed it would be a good idea for the US to ditch all military except nukes/delivery systems, drones and missiles. This was pointed out to be stupid. You asked why and claimed that nukes are a proven deterrent. I suggested that since nukes, drones and missiles have failed to prevent Nazi attackers from forcing a huge war on Russians and genociding Russians that it would seem that drones, missiles and nukes are ineffective as a deterrent (or perhaps you are wrong that war was forced on Russia...hmmm).

Now you say the whole point is that nobody is immune to nukes, missiles and drones? Fine we all agree that nobody is immune to anything and so eliminating conventional weapons would be reckless and stupid.

​​​​​

You said a conventional force will invade us if all we have are drones, missiles and nukes. You said they will call our bluff. It aint a bluff, its our only option.

I didn't really say they would invade us. I asked, what are our options if we or our allies were attacked? Technically if all we had were nukes our options in the face of invasion would be nukes or surrender. Here you insist that means attackers know we will use the nukes and not attack us. How do figure? What if all they attacked was Puerto Rico? Is it worth going nuclear to save Puerto Rico? Is your response to everything going to be nukes? Of course later you add drones and imply you support non nuclear responses as well. What if the attacker has decent ABM? Why would the US and it's allies not take a massive hit to deterrence if all the US non nuclear options besides missiles, drones, and subs were discarded?

So I asked how that conventional force will be immune to our defenses and you didn't know.

Of course I said I didn't know because it seemed like a complete nonsequitor. Nobody suggested that immunity to nukes, subs, drones and missiles was what made your proposal stupid. You pulled that strawman out of somewhere and flung it at us. In fact, I suppose it's possible that ABM and related technology could offer limited "immunity" to some of the retained weapons and this would surely make proportionate responses even more difficult. However, even in the absence of any countermeasures whatsoever it should be obvious that your proposal is stupid for the obvious and repeated reasons you ignore to focus on this ridiculous immunity claim.

Instead you wandered off to another illogical analogy. The war was forced on the people of the Donbas, Russia helped defend them from the Nazis. If Nato+Ukraine had invaded Russia in 2014 and Russia lacked the military might to stop the invasion they would have used nukes and we would have known that and not invaded.

Berz how is the failure of deterrence for Russia an "analogy"? You're claiming NATO would not have "attacked" if only Russia had lacked everything but their nukes, subs, missiles and drones because then those weapons would have deterred attack? The presence in Russia's military of additional assets that you'd like the US to get rid of is why their deterrence failed against the US? Why did you maintain that the US wanted to "attack" Russia in the first place?

We dont need the army and navy to have a deterrent, we need them to 'police' the world.

. But they are deterrents indeed.
​​​​​​

[Dauphin]

DP

[Dauphin]

here's what you said:

"he was as likely to be a compromised by Russia money, kompromat or other influences as anything else. Look up his connections and antics with Lebedev when he was foreign secretary. One must ask why he made a Russian oligarch and the son of a senior KGB/SVR officer, a Lord, and why he ditched his security details for secret meetings with the Lebedev family. I am not saying Boris was compromised, but he may have been a 'useful idiot' for Russia. Which rather nullifies a conspiracy that he was pushing to maintain a war with Russia that Russia did not want."

Looks like another Russiagate conspiracy

It is documented fact that the Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation​s sits in the House of Lords.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4900/contact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Special_Honours

He is as likely to acted at his own interest, US interests or Russian interests. The idea that he nixed a peace deal is what I think is bunk.​

[Berzerker]

Biden nixed the deal... We would have heard about it if Boris promoted the war Biden wanted to prevent

[Berzerker]

They retreated to avoid encirclement and total defeat. Not coincidentally the circumstances that made that outcome possible also led to the draft treaties being prepared. They never stopped pushing in the south. So zero evidence of a treaty signing or of treaty implementation. Boris showed up to do whatever it was he was going to do. The evil neocons in Washington wouldn't have entrusted Boris with anything important would they?

Furthermore if treaty drafts are enough to make the signing parties implement the treaty why would anyone sign them?

What is this enormous gulf between a treaty and a draft treaty? Whatever they agreed to and whatever you want to call it, the result was the Russian army leaving Kiev. Ofc they didn't retreat from the Donbas, Russia has been defending those people for close to a decade. Leaving Kiev behind was the implementation of a peace deal. If all you can do is argue about what the deal they had is called then you're obviously uninterested in the fact Biden killed it. And no, they didn't retreat to avoid encirclement or because of a lethal Ukrainian counter attack, that was all western propaganda to cover for the fact Russia withdrew to end the war.

[-Jrabbit]

This is total fantasy.

[Geronimo]

What is this enormous gulf between a treaty and a draft treaty? Whatever they agreed to and whatever you want to call it, the result was the Russian army leaving Kiev. Ofc they didn't retreat from the Donbas, Russia has been defending those people for close to a decade. Leaving Kiev behind was the implementation of a peace deal. If all you can do is argue about what the deal they had is called then you're obviously uninterested in the fact Biden killed it. And no, they didn't retreat to avoid encirclement or because of a lethal Ukrainian counter attack, that was all western propaganda to cover for the fact Russia withdrew to end the war.

The same gap as between a bill and a law or between a marriage proposal and a marriage or between a contract form and a signed contract. The enormous gap is that while a draft treaty is basically a talking point a signed treaty is a legally binding agreement that all sides have initiated a process of enacting as law. How is this not an enormous gulf?

[N35t0r]

What is this enormous gulf between a treaty and a draft treaty? Whatever they agreed to and whatever you want to call it, the result was the Russian army leaving Kiev. Ofc they didn't retreat from the Donbas, Russia has been defending those people for close to a decade. Leaving Kiev behind was the implementation of a peace deal. If all you can do is argue about what the deal they had is called then you're obviously uninterested in the fact Biden killed it. And no, they didn't retreat to avoid encirclement or because of a lethal Ukrainian counter attack, that was all western propaganda to cover for the fact Russia withdrew to end the war.

lol, you have absolutely no proof about any of this. Just your wild-ass claim.

If the retreat from Kiev was orderly and not a withdrawal, then why did they leave so much equipment behind?

Why was there constant footage of ambushed supply vehicles in that column?

It makes much more sense that they went for a decapitation strike at Kiev, failed, and were caught with their pants down without a plan beyond the three-day special military operation.

Or were the photos of captured VDV equipment at hostomel that included dress uniforms also western propaganda to cover the alleged peace treaty?

Going with that line of reasoning, I am going to claim that the USA doesn't exist, that it's propaganda made up by the Russians.

[BeBMan]

What is this enormous gulf between a treaty and a draft treaty?

[Berzerker]

and I still cant get an answer

[pchang]

You get plenty of answers. You just can’t accept them.

[Berzerker]

answers clarify, his analogies do the opposite

[Ming]

lol, you have absolutely no proof about any of this. Just your wild-ass claim.

If the retreat from Kiev was orderly and not a withdrawal, then why did they leave so much equipment behind?

Why was there constant footage of ambushed supply vehicles in that column?

It makes much more sense that they went for a decapitation strike at Kiev, failed, and were caught with their pants down without a plan beyond the three-day special military operation.

Or were the photos of captured VDV equipment at hostomel that included dress uniforms also western propaganda to cover the alleged peace treaty?

Going with that line of reasoning, I am going to claim that the USA doesn't exist, that it's propaganda made up by the Russians.

What he said... You keep talking about how Russia retreated due to some fantasy peace deal... Total BS.
They got beat up and their special military operation failed. That's why they retreated (routed)
But keep blaming Biden for EVERYTHING you can. However, the blame here falls on the Russia military plan that failed.
Just like the total blame for the war is on Russia/Putin... not Biden or some imaginary deep state plot.

[Berzerker]

The same gap as between a bill and a law or between a marriage proposal and a marriage or between a contract form and a signed contract. The enormous gap is that while a draft treaty is basically a talking point a signed treaty is a legally binding agreement that all sides have initiated a process of enacting as law. How is this not an enormous gulf?

That isn't the same gap, Russia did not propose to withdraw its army from Kiev, it initiated the process by leaving. Were they making a deal or not and did the west kill it? Yes, Biden wanted this war.

[-Jrabbit]

Leaving Kiev was a straight-up defeat, NOT the "initiation" of an imagined peace treaty.
Dictating terms (we get the Donbas!) is not "making a deal."

[Geronimo]

That isn't the same gap, Russia did not propose to withdraw its army from Kiev, it initiated the process by leaving. Were they making a deal or not and did the west kill it? Yes, Biden wanted this war.

LOL, no. You don't make a draft treaty become in part a signed treaty by unilateral implementation. Especially if your partial implementation was involuntary or if not partially implementing it becomes untenable. Like when your armed forces you are agreeing to remove can no longer supply themselves and are at huge risk of encirclement and total destruction. There's also nothing in the agreement about Russia leaving it's equipment behind so their doing so obviously points to the withdrawal being the involuntary kind.


However I think you'd also enjoy an "analogy" to help you understand this concept. I'm happy to help in that regard. So here you go Berz. That would be like if the local newspaper offered me a years subscription which I refused to sign for and they ended up delivering it anyway because I was at the end of the delivery route and they always had one leftover and they dropped it off for their own convenience. There is no sense in which the service agreement can be seen as having been broken.

Also, let's accept your bizarre understanding of the draft treaty situation at face value. Let's say that Ukraine and Russia signed the peace agreement which they kept secret while Russia initiated the withdrawal from Kiev while leaving behind equipment and under continuous attack by the Ukrainians and with Russia continuing a broad slowly advancing assault everywhere else on the front in the teeth of fierce Ukrainian resistance. Ukraine's neocon masters in Washington are not pleased to learn about Ukraine and Russia's secret peace treaty. They send their toadie minion PM Boris into Kiev post haste to convey their profound displeasure. Borris personally tells the Ukrainians that if Zelensky doesn't step back in line and throw the newly effective treaty into history's trash bin the neocons will make the ~2k or fewer strong Azov battling Russia in the SE front cone to Kiev and kill Zelensky and his family. Zelensky knows he is helpless in Kiev against an armed Ukrainian formation engaged in existential battles in the Donbas against Russian forces he has signed a peace treaty with, so with great sorrow he throws the new secret peace agreement into history's trash bin to save himself and his family from the neocon nazi puppets battling Russia in the Donbas. Ok. I guess that makes sense to that point. But then, why don't we hear from Putin about the unilateral Ukrainian breach of the treaty until several months later? Is it because it was a secret treaty? If so why did Putin eventually decide to betray the secret months later? Also if Zelensky was a neo Nazi toadie like Boris. Why didn't he phone his masters for approval before signing the secret treaty? Finally, what if anything would Ukraine have done differently if they had honored the secret treaty? Would they have laid down arms under fire in the Donbas? Maybe they were supposed to leave their equipment behind in the Donbas, while Russians would leave their equipment behind between Belarus and Kiev? Why didn't the draft copy of the treaty mention any of that? Why do you think the wording of the secret treaty and draft treaty are the same? Help me understand what color the sky is in your world (figuratively speaking) Berz? I'll admit that I'm fascinated.

[Berzerker]

lol, you have absolutely no proof about any of this. Just your wild-ass claim.

If the retreat from Kiev was orderly and not a withdrawal, then why did they leave so much equipment behind?

Why was there constant footage of ambushed supply vehicles in that column?

It makes much more sense that they went for a decapitation strike at Kiev, failed, and were caught with their pants down without a plan beyond the three-day special military operation.

Or were the photos of captured VDV equipment at hostomel that included dress uniforms also western propaganda to cover the alleged peace treaty?

Going with that line of reasoning, I am going to claim that the USA doesn't exist, that it's propaganda made up by the Russians.

It was a withdrawal. If they left equipment behind maybe they thought peace was breaking out and wouldn't need damaged vehicles. Was there constant footage? Provided by whom exactly, the Ghost of Kiev? If Zelensky won this great battle in defense of Kiev why was he making a peace deal right before his glorious victory? I dont think you understand Washington and Kiev have been lying to us about their war.

[COckney]

people should provide security when a government can't

[PLATO]

It was a withdrawal. If they left equipment behind maybe they thought peace was breaking out and wouldn't need damaged vehicles. Was there constant footage? Provided by whom exactly, the Ghost of Kiev? If Zelensky won this great battle in defense of Kiev why was he making a peace deal right before his glorious victory? I dont think you understand Washington and Kiev have been lying to us about their war.

I think someone has been lying to you about the war. I just think they live in Moscow instead of Washington and Kyiv.

[pchang]

I think the liar is in his own head.

[N35t0r]

It was a withdrawal. If they left equipment behind maybe they thought peace was breaking out and wouldn't need damaged vehicles. Was there constant footage? Provided by whom exactly, the Ghost of Kiev? If Zelensky won this great battle in defense of Kiev why was he making a peace deal right before his glorious victory? I dont think you understand Washington and Kiev have been lying to us about their war.

Russia is still not calling it a war, they are the ones invading, and Washington and Kiev are the ones lying about it?

Are the drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian civilians also all lies? Are the images all fake and photoshopped, and the buildings demolished on purpose, or is it really the US striking Ukrainian targets to make the Russians look bad? And they somehow have enough blackmail on Putin to prevent him from calling them out on it (but not enough to stop him from invading)?

[PLATO]

Of course! That's it! The Jewish President, along side with the US is doing all this damage to help Russia de-nazify Ukraine while Russian troops are desperately trying to help keep the non-nazi population safe. Why didn't we see this before!?!

[Berzerker]

Can you think of a better use of Nazis if you're Jewish? If I was Zelensky and the Nazis threatened me for interfering in their war and they had the CIA's backing, I might tell them to go right ahead and get yourselves killed. But Zelensky was elected in 2019, this war began when Nazis attacked the Donbas in 2014 so his ethnicity is irrelevant. You should read up on what the US replacement (Poroshenko) in 2014 had to say about the Ukrainians being killed by the Nazis, their children will live in basements while Kiev's children will go to school. Nice country.

[Berzerker]

Russia is still not calling it a war, they are the ones invading, and Washington and Kiev are the ones lying about it?

Are the drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian civilians also all lies? Are the images all fake and photoshopped, and the buildings demolished on purpose, or is it really the US striking Ukrainian targets to make the Russians look bad? And they somehow have enough blackmail on Putin to prevent him from calling them out on it (but not enough to stop him from invading)?

How does Russia's name for the war make Washington and Kiev honest? Amnesty Intl pissed off people for reporting the Ukrainian practice of using civilian areas to launch attacks and withdrawing before the counter attack. Showing images of destroyed buildings doesn't mean civilians were killed, the apt towers used by Azov in Mariupol had already been vacated. I dont think Russia targets noncombatants, they dont need to and its counter productive. They considered these people allies enough to defend them for a decade. I'm positive a majority of the civilian death toll throughout this war from 2014 onward came at the hands of Kiev, not Moscow. The Ukrainian right wing does not like "russians" even if they're Ukrainian, they attacked them in 2014 and that establishes the moral high ground... if you think people have the right to defend themselves from Nazis.

[N35t0r]

**** you and your ****ing gilded cage. I know Ukrainians who have personally lost family members to the Russian strikes. I know Ukrainians who still can't sleep even after one year of living here because of the ****ing missile that hit their ****ing apartment building and killed their neighbors two floors up.

lol, "I don't think Russia targets noncombatants". You're a dumb tool and I sure hope Russia is paying you for carrying their water, because you are the same as the supposed Nazis you say you oppose.