[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 21 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]




- Finland has prepared for decades for a Russian attack and would put up stiff resistance should one occur, its armed forces chief said.

The Nordic country has built up a substantial arsenal. But aside from the military hardware, General Timo Kivinen said, a crucial factor is that Finns would be motivated to fight.

"The most important line of defence is between one's ears, as the war in Ukraine proves at the moment," Kivinen said in an interview.

"Ukraine has been a tough bite to chew (for Russia) and so would be Finland."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/finland-is-ready-fight-russia-if-attacked-defence-chief-2022-06-22/
>>
You mean they are ready to lose for the third time?
>>
>>1061068
Considering that Finland is going to be in NATO soon, that would end in a colossal embarrassment for Russia.
>>
>>1061072
how wonderful to die for nato and eu.a true dream for the finnish people.
>>
>>1061152
The entire purpose of NATO is to act as a deterrent against war, anon, Russia would gain absolutely nothing from a conflict against NATO and potentially lose everything. Once Finland and Sweden are in, they're pretty much untouchable and that's why Russia is throwing a bitchfit about their ascension.
>>
>>1061068
Considering finland didn't become part of the USSR I'd say they didn't really lose the winter/continuation war anon
>>
>>1061072
>Considering that Finland is going to be in NATO soon
2 more weeks
>>
>>1061072
1) Are turks aware of this news?

2) If by "collossal embarrassment" you mean "premature Fallout 5 release"....
>>
>>1061161
1) Goals and aims of The Mustache were known and discussed for years, up to the point when soviets were offering huge swaths of their land in exchange for this tiny safety zone between future Nazi invasion and Leningrad. But since Finns had more pride than brains, they ended up losing even more than Russians wanted and didn't get anything in return.
2) Are you going to argue that at the end of this "continuation war" (what a fancy way to say that Finns were Nazi lapdogs during WW2) Soviets were not able to crush and fully annex already beaten Finns? All this "saved their independence during the Winter War" kind of cope falls apart after mentioning that oh so sought after Finland was at Stalin's mercy at the end of the war, and was spared only because The 'Stache thought that total annexation would be inconvenient.
Face it, Finland is the only country that managed to lose WW2 twice. That's why they vomited an enormous amount of cope during and after the beating.
>>
>>1061207
>But since Finns had more pride than brains, they ended up losing even more than Russians wanted and didn't get anything in return.
If the Russians got everything they wanted, they would've taken all of Finland. They had overwhelming superiority in numbers and only managed to take a small portion of the country while taking massive casualties in comparison to the Finns. This is clearly cope.
>Are you going to argue that at the end of this "continuation war" (what a fancy way to say that Finns were Nazi lapdogs during WW2) Soviets were not able to crush and fully annex already beaten Finns?
NTA, but yes. If the Soviets were able to completely annex Finland, they would have, but they simply were not able to sustain the losses required to do so. Also, Finns only allied with the Nazis to try to secure their independence from subhuman slavs.
>The 'Stache thought that total annexation would be inconvenient.
You have basically OD'd on cope at this point.
>Face it, Finland is the only country that managed to lose WW2 twice.
They were fighting against overwhelming odds and managed to hold on to most of their country, that's the best outcome you can hope for in that scenario. This narrative that you're trying to create is dumb as fuck.
>>
>>1061154
russia benefits nothing from invading finland, period.but retards think that non aggression is guaranteed by even selling more of your sovereignty away.finland has seen 0% aggression from russia since 1945.finland has actually been more hostile to russia under that time.
>>
>>1061198
1. Yes, Erdogan bitched about it and even floated the idea of blocking their ascension but ultimately won't do anything to stop it.

2. You've heard of Mutually Assured Destruction before, right? If anything, Finland joining NATO will make nuclear war less likely because NATO nuclear powers (US, UK, and France) would turn Russia into a wasteland in the event of nuclear war.
>>
>>1061303
>russia benefits nothing from invading finland, period.
Russia doesn't really benefit from invading Ukraine eiter, but that certainly didn't stop them.
>>
>>1061307
but parts of ukraine has been russian clay for long parts of its history, and has a large russian leaning population.start using your arguments in some better comparisons, and not dogs to cats.
>>
>>1061311
>start using your arguments in some better comparisons
Okay, here us my argument:

1.Only niggers use irredentism to justify unprovoked invasions.
2. Russia uses irredentism to justify an unprovoked invasion.
3. Therefore, Russians are niggers.

Simple enough?
>>
>>1061314
i could not care less what russian are or are not, and your demented thoughts about them.the only thing i know and care about is their plans against finland.and im 100% confident that russia has nothing to gain from an invasion against finland. simply because we have nothing to offer them geographically or in resources.everything we have, russia has 100x times.
>>
>>1061072
I should get on the phone to the Turkish leadership, they're gonna be pissed! >>1061332
Sami peoples. Hot Lapp women?
>>
>>1061068
More like Russian humiliation again.
>>
>>1061063
Does Timo Karvinen know that Russia has nuclear weapons and a vacuum bomb? Even one vacuum bomb will be enough to turn half of Finland into a desert. And even if Russia does not use any strategic weapons, we all know perfectly well that Finland's forces will last for 1-1.5 years, after which it will capitulate.
>>
>>1061072
Turkey, which is an active member of NATO, does not agree. If Finland joins NATO, it will humiliate the Turkish president and show that the rules for joining NATO can change regardless of what is written in them. NATO to risk losing relations with Turkey, which may unite with Russia and China.
>>
>>1061287
>>1061287

So you, in all seriousness, believe that the army that grinded down Nazi and then swallowed Kwantung Army whole and shat it out like it was a KFC fanbox, the army that was THE strongest army on the planet in 1945, was powerless to do anything about salty swamp lovers who begged them for peace at the end of the Winter War? And you believe in that solely because "they wanted to annex Finland, they wanted to annex Finland, THEY WANTED TO ANNEX FINLAND AAAAAA LET ME OUT" kind of self-indoctrination?
Damn boy, you're... just as deranged as someone thinking that these Nazi lapdogs won anything should be, actually. BTW if anything, Finns sucking German dick and moving beyond their original borders to help lay siege on Leningrad were a proof that Soviet preventive actions were totally justified, and their victory in the Winter War was necessary to save the city from being overrun during the first months of German invasion from the territory of oh so independent Finland.
Face it, these finno-ugres weren't just just beaten 2 times in the same war, they also were on the wrong side the whole time and Soviet actions against them were totally justified.
>>
>>1061306
1) Is Erdogan aware of your fantasies?

2) You really didn't get what I was telling you and why, don't you? Reread the initial BS you wrote, and think again how does my responce to it refute it.
>>
>>1061352
Bitch please, Finnland doesn't have much territory to cede to "humilliate" anyone like they used to.
>>
>>1061354
Erdogan won't do anything to stop Finland and Sweden's ascension, you're a retard.
>>
>>1061358
1. You're delusional if you think Erdogan will destroy his relations with the west by blocking the ascension.

2. I did refute it, you're a retard who doesn't understand modern military doctrine. MAD makes nuclear war extremely unlikely but doesn't completely eliminate the chance of conventional war between two nuclear powers; Pakistan and India are examples of two nuclear powers that actually fought eachother in a conventional conflict without deploying any nukes bevause they knew it would be pointless.
If Russia tries to nuke Finland, they're committing suicide. If they try to invade Finland without nukes, they will ultimately be repulsed by the combined force of NATO. Finland in NATO is a lose-lose situation fir Russia, that's why they're so upset about it.
>>
>>1061356
>So you, in all seriousness, believe that the army that grinded down Nazi and then swallowed Kwantung Army whole and shat it out like it was a KFC fanbox, the army that was THE strongest army on the planet in 1945, was powerless to do anything about salty swamp lovers who begged them for peace at the end of the Winter War?
Swamps are hard to invade, anon.
Read carefully, I will say this as many times as you need to hear it:
If the Soviets could have taken all of Finland, then they would have. The Soviets took over 5x the casualties of the Finns just trying to take the tiny portion of the country that they managed to take, they couldn't bear those kinds of losses.
>BTW if anything, Finns sucking German dick and moving beyond their original borders to help lay siege on Leningrad were a proof that Soviet preventive actions were totally justified
Are you retarded? Soviets tried to invade their country, this is like punching some rando and claiming it was justified when he punches you back.
>>
>>1061446

You failed to reread my comment, drooling imbecile. What I wrote was "You mean they are ready to lose for the third time?", referring to the futility of their attempts to brag about their pitiful military. Any war between Russia and Finland will ultimately lead to yet another Finnish defeat, their only hope is that at the wery least their new masters will assure mutual destruction, and their only salvation is that Russia have no interest in their frozen swamp. Your attempts to play captain obvious made your idiotic conclusions even more laughable than your wishful thinking that Erdogan will chicken out and allow ckuckold countries into NATO without leveraging some benefits US might not be willing to give.
>>
>>1061475

Damn boy, you're dense. Finland begged Russia for peace after they broke through Mannerheim line, and the guy himself urged the Finnish government for peace because the Finnish army would not exist in 2 weeks after that. It's not "swamps", it's the botched plan of an incompetent Stalin's bootlicker that caused such losses during the initial stage of the invasion. As soon as the Soviets changed their commander, assigned sufficient forces and brewed a new plan, things went drastically differently. It wasn't soviets who decided to end the war because "it was not worth it", it's Finland who begged for mercy because they could resist no longer. Finnish defence was undone, Finnish army was beaten and Finnish allies turned their backs. And you are retarded enough to believe that in such circumstances the Soviets, who allegedly watered their mouths over the thought of owning a worthless piece of frozen swamp, decided that they should go no further? Or maybe there is a more reasonable explanation, like, dunno, ALL their official claims, demands and reasoning from before the war? They wanted a safety barrier between the Nazi invasion and Leningrad, and they got it. End of story.

>If the Soviets could have taken all of Finland

Read carefully, retard, for I already refuted your idiotic self-bullshitting several times: Finland. Were. At the Soviet's. Mercy. At the end of WW2. If you believe that Finns had any hope of holding off the strongest army on the planet just because otherwise your idiotic belief that Soviets wanted to annex Finland will have no ground - you should get yourself a brain replacement, cuz your stuck in self-affirming loop of bullshit without any hope to reach reality again.
>Soviets tried to invade their country
Tell that to Iceland, which was occupied by the British during the war out of fear that Germany will use it as its naval base. Well, at least Iceland got its territory back, since Brits didn't have to fight for it.
>>
>>1061507
>"You mean they are ready to lose for the third time?"
Honest question, how do you think an invasion of Finland would go with the Finns in NATO? This is not rhetorical, I really want to know how you think this would go down.
>Any war between Russia and Finland will ultimately lead to yet another Finnish defeat, their only hope is that at the wery least their new masters will assure mutual destruction, and their only salvation is that Russia have no interest in their frozen swamp.
And the combined forces of NATO coming to their aid, don't forget about that.
>Erdogan will chicken out and allow ckuckold countries into NATO
True.
>>
>>1061576
>And you are retarded enough to believe that in such circumstances the Soviets, who allegedly watered their mouths over the thought of owning a worthless piece of frozen swamp, decided that they should go no further?
They decided to go no further because they took massive casualties compared to the Finns just for the small piece of territory that they managed to seize. All Finland had to do was make the invasion as costly as possible for the Soviets to deter any further advances and they did a damn good job at it, the mere fact that they weren't completely absorbed into the USSR at the end of the war left them in a far better place than many other countries facing Soviet aggression. If they can manage that, how would modern Russia deal with Finland in NATO?
>>
>>1061576
>strongest army on the planet
Only if you count numbers, in all other categories they are deficient.
Russia can defend, and get its ass kicked. That can be useful in a war, but in the longterm they just can't keep it up.
JUST TWO MORE WEEKS IN UKRAINE, RIGHT?
>>
>>1061068
>You mean they are ready to lose for the third time?
FIFTH.
Finland also invaded Russia twice during Russian Civil War (got trashed both times, obviously).

>>1061287
>If the Russians got everything they wanted, they would've taken all of Finland.
Soviets needed pacified Brits more than Finland (because WW2), and Brits wanted Finland to be independent (or they'd declare war on USSR in 1940 and peace out out of war with Reich). This is why Finland wasn't annexed, not because of some fictional military achievements of Finland.

>You have basically OD'd on cope at this point.
You do realize that you are the one who is arguing that Finland signing documents titled "Surrender of Finland" isn't a sign of defeat?

> that's the best outcome you can hope for in that scenario.
So were they defeated or not?

>>1061307
>Russia doesn't really benefit from invading Ukraine eiter,
The fuck are you talking about? It does. Ukraine is key to Russia proper.
>>
>>1061638

>Honest question, how do you think an invasion of Finland would go with the Finns in NATO? This is not rhetorical, I really want to know how you think this would go down.

>their only hope is that at the wery least their new masters will assure mutual destruction

Dense an an oak.

>And the combined forces of NATO coming to their aid, don't forget about that

>their only hope is that at the wery least their new masters will assure mutual destruction

I think I already mentioned it, Majestic Oakman.

>True

Self-delusion detected, opinion rejected.
>>
>>1061691
Damn dude, your rading disability are impressive to the point of being amusing.

>Damn boy, you're dense. Finland begged Russia for peace after they broke through Mannerheim line, and the guy himself urged the Finnish government for peace because the Finnish army would not exist in 2 weeks after that. It's not "swamps", it's the botched plan of an incompetent Stalin's bootlicker that caused such losses during the initial stage of the invasion. As soon as the Soviets changed their commander, assigned sufficient forces and brewed a new plan, things went drastically differently. It wasn't soviets who decided to end the war because "it was not worth it", it's Finland who begged for mercy because they could resist no longer. Finnish defence was undone, Finnish army was beaten and Finnish allies turned their backs. And you are retarded enough to believe that in such circumstances the Soviets, who allegedly watered their mouths over the thought of owning a worthless piece of frozen swamp, decided that they should go no further? Or maybe there is a more reasonable explanation, like, dunno, ALL their official claims, demands and reasoning from before the war? They wanted a safety barrier between the Nazi invasion and Leningrad, and they got it. End of story.
>>
>>1061759

The Red Army was the most experienced, well equipped, organized and numerous land army on the planet at the end of WW2. True, Americans and even Brits had better navy, and the US had vastly superior industrial capabilities, but you must be a MacBurger to think the American army could stand against them at that moment. It has all been going downhill for Russians since then, though.
>JUST TWO MORE WEEKS IN UKRAINE, RIGHT?
And how is that lament on dying Ukraine related to the topic, hmm?
>>
>>1061306
>2. You've heard of Mutually Assured Destruction before, right? If anything, Finland joining NATO will make nuclear war less likely because NATO nuclear powers (US, UK, and France) would turn Russia into a wasteland in the event of nuclear war.
Are you retarded?
Do you even read what you write?
Why the fuck would there be nuclear war?

MAD itself ensures that US/UK/France will NOT launch nukes. They do NOT want to get nuked in return. Because that is what would happen if anyone would try to nuke Russia. Which is why nobody would start using nukes to defend Finland. That is what Mutually Assured Destruction is about.

Until and unless Russia actually threatens US, US is not going to use nukes. And invading Finland (NATO or not) is not a threat to US.

This is fully reflected in NATO treaties: they do not mandate USA (or anyone else) to commit any major forces to defending NATO members. Least of all nuclear.

Let me repeat: there is absolutely no clause that can - magically - allow Finland to seize control over American (or French, or British) nukes and launch them at Russia. And nobody has any reason to use nukes to defend Finland.

How the fuck can you jump to the opposite conclusion?

>>1061638
>And the combined forces of NATO coming to their aid, don't forget about that.
Yeah, no.
Both Turkey & Western Europe would bail. Of the remaining, only Poland has enough troops to matter AND could be roped by US into defending Finland. Except Poland could get nuked by Russia with impunity, as West will not start full-scale nuclear war just to defend Poles.
>>
>>1061475
the soviets took huge losses, because stalin wanted to larp german blitzkrieg, while his still alive highest ranking commander said straight out, that they should just do a massive push down the southeast.which in the end they did, and ended the war in a month.
>>
>>1061961
Are you high?
Because you sound high as fuck.
>>
>>1062478
high on historical accuracy.maybe open a book or watch a documentary from time to time.you could loose some of that retardation.
>>
The root of all evil is low-level education that leaves people ignorant, stupid, immature, mentally/personally ill.
Anyone who is inspired or brainwashed by conspiracy theory, fake, pseudoscience, hoaxes, fortune-telling, or religion and is euphoric as "my knowledge is all true" is a victim of inappropriate low-level education.
Since we do not teach philosophy or psychology in compulsory education, children grow up to have a personality that lacks foresight, sympathy, self-control, problem-solving, logical thinking, self-affirmation, and various kinds of literacy.
All inexperienced people need NOT HATRED (information shut-out, jostle, neglect, punishment, exclusion), BUT LOVE (information exchange, hug, respect, forgiveness, tolerance, comfort, enlightenment, advanced and adequate higher-level education, psychotherapy counseling, salvation)
If you can't love them, it means that you need love first.

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>1061837
>their only hope is that at the wery least their new masters will assure mutual destruction
NATO has no reason to launch nukes unless Russia launches nukes first, they most certainly have more to offer Finland than MAD you absolute retard. The only reason MAD was even brought up was because stupid niggers immediately default to the threat of nuclear war when discussing Finland in NATO.
>>
>>1061843
>Why the fuck would there be nuclear war?
There wouldn't.
I brought up MAD specifically because I was trying to point out that nuclear war is extremely unlikely to >>1061198
Read the thread before you try to talk with grown-ups.
>>
>>1061843
>Both Turkey & Western Europe would bail. Of the remaining, only Poland has enough troops to matter AND could be roped by US into defending Finland.
This is cope, NATO members are obligated to come to the aid of other members under attack.
>Except Poland could get nuked by Russia with impunity, as West will not start full-scale nuclear war just to defend Poles.
There is no chance that Russia could nuke a NATO member with no retaliation, this is beyond delusional.
>>
>>1061838
Finland is still an independent state while Russia is a shell of it's former self and it's only going downhill from here. I'm sorry you have to hear it from me, but someone had to tear that band-aid off sooner or later.
>>
>>1063266
you are truly delusional, if you think that a state is independent, when run by literally a puppet of the wef.finland is and will always be just a satellite nation to eu and i hate to say it, but its true.
>>
>>1063347
Russia doesn't even try to hide the fact that they're a dictatorship, they straight up arrest people for holding up blank signs. I'd prefer living in an actual democracy, but to each their own.
>>
>>1063264
>This is cope, NATO members are obligated to come to the aid of other members under attack.
Read the fucking treaty.
NATO members THEMSELVES determine what kind of aid they'll be providing:
>> ... if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking ... such action AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

In other words, if USA (or France, or UK) will deem it necessary to send thoughts and prayers only, then they'll be "obligated" to send thoughts and prayers only. And nobody can do anything about it.

Or did you actually expect that USA would commit itself to nuclear war to defend some third-rate nation? NATO's purpose is to make Europeans buy US weapons.

> There is no chance that Russia could nuke a NATO member with no retaliation, this is beyond delusional.
Then tell me what happens if:
1) Lithuania aggroes Russia enough to get their own "special military operation" (which is - funnily enough - justified under international law, as it annuled a bunch of treaties with Russia).
2) Poland decides to make a stand, and sends its army into Lithuania.
3) Russia decides not to waste troops, and hits Poles with several nukes (not just troops in Lithuania, but also main military bases within Poland).

Now what happens?
Poland got nuked. How does NATO "retaliate"?

NATO can't send conventional troops as Russia will nuke anything strong enough to present a challenge.

Will NATO launch nukes? But nuking Russia would result in Russia nuking USA/UK/France - and neither USA, nor UK, nor France want to get nuked just to take revenge for some Eastern European retards. And it will be USA/UK/France deciding whether or not they launch nukes.

I'm betting on sanctions, weapons, and volunteers. But I'm willing to hear you out, my brainwashed expert. How does NATO "retaliate"?
>>
>>1063372
>Or did you actually expect that USA would commit itself to nuclear war to defend some third-rate nation?
It would only become a nuclear war if Russia makes it a nuclear war, but I would fully expect the US (at least) to mobilize for war in the event of an attack on a NATO member state since they're basically the de facto main security guarantor of the alliance, I can't even imagine France and Germany half-assing it since an attack on a NATO member would be an immediate security issue for them. The west obviously doesn't want war, but they can only bear so much provocation and an attack on a NATO member would be unacceptable, I still don't understand how you've created a scenario in your head where Russia attacks a NATO member with no retaliation.
>Then tell me what happens if:
1. Lithuania is a NATO member state, anon, they'd get a lot more than just Poland retaliating. This would essentially put Russia in open conflict with NATO, which would assemble a reaction force to try to repel the invasion. I can't emphasize this enough, you are seriously underestimating the willingness of NATO to mobilize in protection of its interests to the point that its actually kind of funny.
3. Nuclear war is so unthinkable that I'm honestly not sure I or anyone can reasonably predict how it would end, but there is absolutely no chance that NATO backs down from that kind of escalation. I'm almost certain that NATO members that have nukes would deploy them in their own operations, but this would likely escalate to all out nuclear war anyway. This is the reason why it would be absolute insanity for Russia to launch nukes, they have nothing to gain from it. It's the entire reason why MAD was brought up multiple times in this thread, because retards like you treat nuclear war like something Moscow would do on a whim in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Thank fucking God you're not in the Kremlin, humanity would be extinct within a year.
>>
The common root causes of all experiences including emotions are the experiencer's own fixed ideas, preconceptions, own rules, beliefs, biases, memories, judgment criteria, etc. The stronger the attachment, the stronger the emotion. As long as the sense of values do not change, the person repeats a similar experience.
How to interpret, react and deal with information is entirely up to each interpreter. "Disturbance of society, words, clothes, and morals" is a self-projection of the disorder of the person who feels it.
Dissatisfaction, anxiety, discomfort, scary, distrust, discomfort, and mystery are caused by each person's stereotypes, so it is irrelevant to blame others. Those who give inconvenience to others also gain inconvenience.
Therefore, even if you make someone angry, you have no cause of that anger. Conversely, if someone offends you, the person has no cause of your anger.
Tolerant people who punish others, have low independence, have low problem-solving ability, and care about external evaluation need manners, courtesy, rules, and laws for emotional stability and self-defense.

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>1063375
>It would only become a nuclear war if Russia makes it a nuclear war
Reality is not Hollywood. Having High Moral Ground (which exists only in your imagination, btw) will not provide you with any tangible benefits.

In reality, USA/UK/France has to have a genuine reason to commit mass-suicide for them to nuke Russia. And moralistic nonsense mass-media uses as an excuse for whatever atrocity of the week First World commits in Third World doesn't work, as leaders of USA/UK/France will be sacrificing themselves not Third-Worlders, not even general public of First World. Themselves.

Your whole logic can be summed up as "if Putin sneezes, nuclear powers would be COMPELLED to nuke him, regardless of any consequences. Thus it is impossible for Putin to sneeze." Except it is exceedingly obvious that there is no such compulsion, and - therefore - Putin can sneeze all he wants.

>3. Nuclear war is so unthinkable that I'm honestly not sure I or anyone can reasonably predict how it would end
I am not asking you about nuclear war (which is perfectly predictable; that's the whole point of MAD). I am asking you how NATO will "retaliate".

I gave you scenario. What is NATO's response? Are you claiming they launch nukes?
>>
>>1061154
No, the entire purpose of nato is to give power to a couple hooknosed kikes who can force your country to do what they want, I've had to watch this shit haooen with my country firsthand, no, we do not need to send millions of masks to niggers in africa and then tax our own people for it, that's fucking retarded
>>
>>1063380
>Reality is not Hollywood. Having High Moral Ground (which exists only in your imagination, btw) will not provide you with any tangible benefits.
Nigger, this has nothing to do with morality, you asked me how NATO would respond if Russia deployed nukes and I responded.
>In reality, USA/UK/France has to have a genuine reason to commit mass-suicide for them to nuke Russia.
Like Russia nuking any military forces they deploy to repel the invasion of Lithuania in your hypothetical example?
>Your whole logic can be summed up as "if Putin sneezes, nuclear powers would be COMPELLED to nuke him, regardless of any consequences.
I don't know if I'd describe NUKING ANOTHER COUNTRY as a sneeze, but whatever.
>I am not asking you about nuclear war (which is perfectly predictable; that's the whole point of MAD). I am asking you how NATO will "retaliate".
Shocking international opinion by nuking another country as part of a military conflict that they initiated will always end horrendously for Russia even if it doesn't immediately escalate into nuclear war. In your example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a reaction force including forces from the US, UK, and France was sent into Lithuania. If Russia decides to nuke those forces as well, do I really have to explain how that would escalate?
>I gave you scenario. What is NATO's response? Are you claiming they launch nukes?
If my previous post wasn't clear enough, it's likely, yes. I think what I just wrote sums it up well enough
>In your example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a reaction force including forces from the US, UK, and France was sent into Lithuania. If Russia decides to nuke those forces as well, do I really have to explain how that would escalate?

Again, thank fucking God you aren't in charge of any nuclear arsenal.
>>
>>1063418
>Nigger
Ah, yes. Le epic reasoning skills.

> you asked me how NATO would respond if Russia deployed nukes and I responded.
You didn't. You bitched and whined, and never gave a straight answer.

> I don't know if I'd describe NUKING ANOTHER COUNTRY as a sneeze, but whatever.
You are inventing arbitrary reasons to start nuclear exchange.

IRL USA/UK/France will not nuke Russia unless and until they are in actual immediate danger they can't handle any other way. Anything less is functionally equivalent to sneezing. I.e. no nukes.

>Shocking international opinion by nuking another country as part of a military conflict that they initiated will always end horrendously for Russia
Drama queens had declared Russia "doomed" to horrific end 4 months ago.
I'm still waiting.

> In your example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a reaction force including forces from the US, UK, and France was sent into Lithuania. If Russia decides to nuke those forces as well, do I really have to explain how that would escalate?
Yes. Tell me what happens. I must know if you can top your belief that anyone in USA/UK/France is retarded enough to retaliate to Polish army being nuked by sending their own troops to get nuked as well.

> Again, thank fucking God you aren't in charge of any nuclear arsenal.
You are the one who wants to kick off nuclear exchange because you got triggered.
>>
>>1063445
You live in a fantasy land where Russia is somehow able to indiscriminately nuke the forces of NATO member states, including other nuclear powers, without any real retaliation. There is no point to continuing this.
>>
>>1063455
>we'll just invade Russia and it won't even nuke our armies
Yeah. You are retarded.
>>
NTA
>>1063455
Clear and concise arguments
>>1063873
Schrodinger's goal-posts

I read the whole exchange.
>>
>>1063879
> this is not me
> I'm a completely different anon
Whatever. Do you have actual point somewhere?

Or is it "MAD means we can do whatever we want and will never get nuked" again?
>>
>>1063881
bud, your schizo-mode is on full display for me alone.
Keep going



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.