Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're projecting again.

---

Notice that the argument to refute you is:
LOLOLOLOOLLOLOLLOL

That's all you need to know

---

Actually, for those paying attention, he said this as well: "Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it."

And he would be right.

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:
No. That's panic talking, and it raises the risk of a bad outcome if you listen.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're projecting again.

---

Notice that the argument to refute you is:
LOLOLOLOOLLOLOLLOL

That's all you need to know

---

Actually, for those paying attention, he said this as well: "Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it."

And he would be right.

---

For those paying attention, this is what he said (and it is his go-to answer for many things when he is outgunned):

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:
No. That's panic talking, and it raises the risk of a bad outcome if you listen.

---

LOL!!! Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're projecting again.

---

Notice that the argument to refute you is:
LOLOLOLOOLLOLOLLOL

That's all you need to know

---

Actually, for those paying attention, he said this as well: "Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it."

And he would be right.

---

For those paying attention, this is what he said (and it is his go-to answer for many things when he is outgunned):

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:
No. That's panic talking, and it raises the risk of a bad outcome if you listen.

---

LOL!!! Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

---

Yes, like I said, the LOL was only part of what he said.

And I know you're a Sam groupie, but a sarcastic response to his drivel is often times appropriate.

EDIT: Hilarious that you liked RMF5630's last post. Any post that attempts to refute mine I guess.

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.hudson.org/research/17637-a-winning-strategy-in-ukraine

Good assessment.

Those who think providing Polish Migs to Ukraine will invite nuclear war are not thinking clearly.

Russia is not going to escalate a blitzkrieg turned into nearly static war of attrition over provision of dated military hardware to Ukraine. We've already openly supplied the Stingers & Javelins that stalled the Russian advance, so the amount of escalation we would be engaging in is minimally incremental. Moreover, given the situation on the ground, Russia simply does not have the resources to broaden the conflict at this time. They have both hands on a tar baby.

In fact, a stronger case can be made that NOT providing more open assistance to Ukraine will only embolden Russia. We...the west in general and America in particular....should never flinch for a moment to openly support the self-determination of free nations. Our rhetoric should talk about an independent Ukraine, free of foreign intimidation, free to pursue it's own path in world affairs, to include requesting membership in NATO and the EU. None of that obligates the USA to agree to Ukrainian membership in NATO, which we should also state does not appear to be in our interests.

Russia is being Russia - using brute force to obtain by war what it could not secure with peace. America should be America, and make Russia pay dearly for such behavior, with enough support that the only reason Ukraine would lose is Ukrainian lack of skill or resolve. Failure to do that sets up Moldova and the Caucasus states for exactly what we are witnessing now.

if we short-arm our response, we lose conventional deterrence, and have only nuclear deterrence left. So if you fear nuclear war, you need to start hugging this cactus.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.hudson.org/research/17637-a-winning-strategy-in-ukraine

Good assessment.

Those who think providing Polish Migs to Ukraine will invite nuclear war are not thinking clearly.

Russia is not going to escalate a blitzkrieg turned into nearly static war of attrition over provision of dated military hardware to Ukraine. We've already openly supplied the Stingers & Javelins that stalled the Russian advance, so the amount of escalation we would be engaging in is minimally incremental. Moreover, given the situation on the ground, Russia simply does not have the resources to broaden the conflict at this time. They have both hands on a tar baby.

In fact, a stronger case can be made that NOT providing more open assistance to Ukraine will only embolden Russia. We...the west in general and America in particular....should never flinch for a moment to openly support the self-determination of free nations. Our rhetoric should talk about an independent Ukraine, free of foreign intimidation, free to pursue it's own path in world affairs, to include requesting membership in NATO and the EU. None of that obligates the USA to agree to Ukrainian membership in NATO, which we should also state does not appear to be in our interests.

Russia is being Russia - using brute force to obtain by war what it could not secure with peace. America should be America, and make Russia pay dearly for such behavior, with enough support that the only reason Ukraine would lose is Ukrainian lack of skill or resolve. Failure to do that sets up Moldova and the Caucasus states for exactly what we are witnessing now.

if we short-arm our response, we lose conventional deterrence, and have only nuclear deterrence left. So if you fear nuclear war, you need to start hugging this cactus.

---

Someone gets it. If the Ukrainians say they need planes, give 'em planes. Russia thinks nothing of supplying not only equipment, but mercs to support them.

If we are the leader of the free world, act like it. This constant fear of what Putin will do and how he will interpret it plays into his and Xi's strategy. Sanctions are great, do them. But they will take years and will not impact why we did them, Ukraine will be lost. Cease to exist, be annexed by Russia. If Putin thinks we have too much influence in Poland, he will start infiltrating there. Until you stop him. Sorry, that is the reality of the situation. Give the Ukraine's what they ask for. They are not asking for troops.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're projecting again.

---

Notice that the argument to refute you is:
LOLOLOLOOLLOLOLLOL

That's all you need to know

---

Actually, for those paying attention, he said this as well: "Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it."

And he would be right.

---

For those paying attention, this is what he said (and it is his go-to answer for many things when he is outgunned):

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:
No. That's panic talking, and it raises the risk of a bad outcome if you listen.

---

LOL!!! Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

---

Yes, like I said, the LOL was only part of what he said.

And I know you're a Sam groupie, but a sarcastic response to his drivel is often times appropriate.

EDIT: Hilarious that you liked RMF5630's last post. Any post that attempts to refute mine I guess.

---

I've disagreed with many of RMF's post on Russia, which puts me in agreement with your position. He expresses legitimate arguments and backs them with reputable sources. He doesn't do LOLOLOLOL as an argument.

You might try his style.

BTW, you seem to covet "likes". I remember how you keep track of such things.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

For a number of reasons, I am not worried about the Russian subs.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

For a number of reasons, I am not worried about the Russian subs.

---

Okay, now I'm panicking.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

For a number of reasons, I am not worried about the Russian subs.

---

Okay, now I'm panicking.

---

Why, do you live on a Russian sub?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

For a number of reasons, I am not worried about the Russian subs.

---

Okay, now I'm panicking.

---

Why, do you live on a Russian sub?

---

No, I've just read a lot of your predictions.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

For a number of reasons, I am not worried about the Russian subs. Again, if I had to use one word, the key word is 'maintenance'.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're projecting again.

---

Notice that the argument to refute you is:
LOLOLOLOOLLOLOLLOL

That's all you need to know

---

Actually, for those paying attention, he said this as well: "Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it."

And he would be right.

---

For those paying attention, this is what he said (and it is his go-to answer for many things when he is outgunned):

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:
No. That's panic talking, and it raises the risk of a bad outcome if you listen.

---

LOL!!! Sam talking as if he recognizes panic. It's been staring at him in the mirror for 2 years and he still can't identify it. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

---

Yes, like I said, the LOL was only part of what he said.

And I know you're a Sam groupie, but a sarcastic response to his drivel is often times appropriate.

EDIT: Hilarious that you liked RMF5630's last post. Any post that attempts to refute mine I guess.

---

I've disagreed with many of RMF's post on Russia, which puts me in agreement with your position. He expresses legitimate arguments and backs them with reputable sources. He doesn't do LOLOLOLOL as an argument.

You might try his style.

BTW, you seem to covet "likes". I remember how you keep track of such things.

---

I've not seen anyone on this thread argue that RMF's posts do not contain legitimate arguments, nor have I seen anyone argue his sources are not reputable. This is what we would call a straw man fallacy, (something you regularly engage in), i.e. taking another person's argument or point, distorting it or exaggerating it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacking the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

Also, reputable sources are not simply those sources you agree with. I think you have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

I know you disagree with Canon's argumentative style, which of course causes you to also discount the legitimate points he does make regarding your hero, Sam. You guys are two birds of a feather...

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

By the way, I may disagree with Canada and some others, but they at least discuss. The only ones I have problems with are the bullies, the idiots playing "got you" on a friggin message board and abusives. They go on ignore, not worth the time.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, let's talk Nukes.

While we always have to be careful about assumptions, it's important as well to understand that Russia does not have quite the nuclear profile they once had. It's one thing to have a lot of missiles in silos and on launchers, something very different to keep them maintained and viable as a first strike threat.

---

Russia has over 4500 warheads...the largest such stockpile in the world .

The most dangerous of course are the ones on their 'boomer' submarines . Several of which lay off the US coast and have continued to do so for over the last 35 years.

Difficult ( though not impossible ) to locate...there are enough hydrogen bombs on those subs alone to kill 60-70% of the US population. As close as these subs are to our coast......a missel launch would reach US targets in less than 45 minutes.

Biggest US deterrent to such an event ? We have our own 'boomer' submarines off various Russian coast lines.

Single biggest problem with people.......most have NEVER seen a hydrogen bomb blast. as above ground testing of such weapons stopped over 40 years ago .

People simply have no real idea of their horrible potential at this point .

---

I get it on the nukes. When I was at Ft Ord, guy in apartment next to ours was one of those troops in the desert watching the at Atomic testing. Had many a discussion.

But, if the nuke stockpile is going to tie the hands of all opponents if you are nasty enough to use it than it is game over. You think N Korea and Iran are not watching? Get enough Nukes, do what you want.

People can say that the US does what it wants, but the bottom-line is the modern US has not subjugated other nations and pretty much has been on the side of democracy and capitalism. I know several on here believe we are just as evil, but I have not seen us do what Russia is doing and if commanders did they were tried.

I also don't remember seeing anyone hugging Russian or Chinese troops when they come into town and I personally experienced that in Kuwait and saw it in Europe. So, I know it happened.

By the way, I may disagree with Canada and some others, but they at least discuss. The only ones I have problems with are the bullies, the idiots playing "got you" on a friggin message board and abusives. They go on ignore, not worth the time.

---