Why doesn't the US carry out a Desert Storm against Russian forces in Ukraine?

Why doesn't the US carry out a Desert Storm against Russian forces in Ukraine? Their numbers and military tech are just like that of Iraq in 1991.
> inb4 muh nukes
Russia has been threatening to use nukes for 2 years now. Ukrainian drones hit cities in Russia regularly and nothing happened despite all the "final warnings" and "red lines". They're just bluffing.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because this would mean waging war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Because this would mean waging war.
      and this matters how?

      day ~700 of 48hr brunch in keev,
      Russia has never been weaker,
      more exposed, and more drained of missiles

      so answer the question:
      >"why isnt the US going (desert_storm_air_war.webm) on Ruzzia, crushing them in a single blow? kinda makes no sense if were being honest

      f22/f35 would SEAD Ruzzia back to the 70's and b21's would have a clear lane to Moscow within 6 hrs
      f15s would literally eat inferior SU57's
      and s400 is proven junk

      your "final red line" of waging war is no longer a threat

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Desert Storm took months to prepare, and the preparations were rather apparent. Iraq had no nukes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          We spent the last 70 years preparing for taiga storm, desert storm used some of our excess materiel meant for russia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Setting aside every issue with this stupid question with the exceptional of one. It being operational; do you understand how long it took the coalition to build their forces up?

        Do you think the Russians would twiddle their thumbs and do nothing? Or do you think they won't consider NATO massing being something they need to preemptively deal with?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Do you think the Russians would twiddle their thumbs and do nothing? Or do you think they won't consider NATO massing being something they need to preemptively deal with?
          the eyebrow is raised
          the lips pursed,
          the red line is crossed

          ^thats probably how it would go right everyone!?
          lets all laugh at the thirdie who thinks muh red line means something

          when i say "F35"
          you say: "Sexoooooooooo"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't fricking matter. They have nukes. Even if most of their nukes are fricking non functional, even if they have only ~50 nukes, the west's retaliation would have to be at least proportional, most likely would be complete.
            I understand that from your armchair general perspective having western Russia turned into nuclear wasteland seems funny, but it would change the world as you know it. Every political or societal paradigm would be rewritten. World economy would come crashing down, and would take a long time to work properly again. China wouldn't like it one bit. All the pocket dictators like Lukashenko or middle eastern theocracies would go full moron. Norks would push their buttons. And enjoy another NATO defensive action in Belarus.
            Fricking grow up. Just because you don't have much to live for, doesn't mean you know what's best for the world.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the thirdies would cope&seethe™

              2nd best military in ukraine doesnt decide anything, and neither does Chang

              we all agree

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fricking hell you are one idiotic, uneducated zoomer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How? With what? Even China is talking shit about them. All we'd have to do is use air power and pave the way for bloodthirsty poles and Ukes. No allies would help them.
          Literally no down side.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >everyday Russia gets weaker
        ya that's why we won't do anything, If Ukraine actually looked like they'd collapse we might get involved but as it stands we don't need to do anything which gives us more time to build up our industrial capacity.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >which gives us more time to build up our industrial capacity.
          lmfao, where is that happening?
          we should probably contain the fantasy to "desert-storm1991.webm"

          and not get too far out into lala land with it
          starts to get goofy, corny even

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Artillery shells have roughly doubled production capacity since the war started and are expected to quadruple from here by the end of next year (the doubling we've had so far is ahead of schedule).
            https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm

            Production looks to be largely flat vs percent of capacity slowly going down which points to total capacity going up.

            Mining production being up 20% since 2017 is nice but i assume that's largely due to shale oil production.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              lmfao,
              >"doubled" from 10 a week to 20!
              awesome!

              also, what fricking incentive does ANY COUNTRY have to produce "new manufacture" for a nation that has a dubious, at best, and (in reality) likely ZERO ability to ever pay for them?

              thats, literal, actual economic suicide,
              by definition
              its starting production to simply "give it away"
              it makes zero sense

              what is the financial explanation for such incredible risk?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >produce stuff in a country where people can't pay for the stuff
                That's not an issue for the US, that said shit gets produced in countries with the intention being to export it OS all the time. The issue is that with export costs increasing it's getting to the point where even paying someone like 10 times what they get paid in China its still cheaper to produce in the US, cheaper still to produce in Mexico though but there's some security issues there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not an issue for the US, that said shit gets produced in countries with the intention being to export it OS all the time. The issue is that with export costs increasing it's getting to the point where even paying someone like 10 times what they get paid in China its still cheaper to produce in the US, cheaper still to produce in Mexico though but there's some security issues there.
                what the frick are you talking about?

                were not talking about tshirts and consumer goods
                were talking about the economically inexplicable folley of starting massive, "War-economy" style production of weapons, to simply GIVE like charity, to another nation, that has a hopeless, impossible future ahead of it, in even the best scenario

                it would be economic suicide to spend $BILLIONS on industrial tooling, to make weapons to simply *give* away, in hopes you will collapse the target nation, and divide its assets as reparations to pay yourself back

                thats like schiziophrenic tier insane, just at face value

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >what fricking incentive does ANY COUNTRY have to produce "new manufacture" for a nation that has a dubious, at best, and (in reality) likely ZERO ability to ever pay for them?
                I don't know. Try asking in Iran.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why doesn't the US carry out a Desert Storm against Russian forces in Ukraine?
        Because US/Iraqi GDP ratio was 512 to 1, US/Russia's is only 13 to 1, and also nukes are a good power equalizer.

        >f22/f35 would SEAD Ruzzia back to the 70's and b21's would have a clear lane to Moscow within 6 hrs
        Russia only lost a few s-400 tubes after them being exposed to 2 years of the entire NATO satellite network. Idk if you're aware, but Ukraine has had western SEAD missiles for about a year now. And the other ~600 S-400 and about 1k S-300 have not gone anywhere.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a few s-400 tubes
          A few launchers*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        because they have 5000 nukes moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          5k is a hugely overinflated number

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            even if it's 200 do you really want to risk losing all of our metropolitan areas

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes. It would be an improvement.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >risk losing all of our metropolitan areas
              Oh no!!!! What a terrible loss!
              Idiot urbanite.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "The enemy is weak so we should destroy them just because" is not an easy casus belli to sell to a democratic public or international allies and trade partners.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's literally the same as when Iraq invaded Kuwait and US responded..
          UN charter forbids wars of aggression.
          Russia invading Ukraine is a war of aggression.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          casus bellis are for wimps that can't win their wars solo and need allies to do half the work for them
          russia steadfastly refuses to make clear exactly what their objective in this war is (is it regime change? annexation of a couple of provinces? demilitarisation? the total collapse of NATO? establishment of a multipolar world order? a defensive war? these and others have all been cited at various points), and they don't have to, because they aren't expecting anyone to back them up in anything other than a very cold realpolitik manner like Iran is doing for example.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would we give Russia/China/NK/Iran information on our real world strike capabilities? They have access to the Wikipedia version of the F-22 and F-35, but no actual data on their true capabilities, tactics, radar cross sections, etc. The US us saving that for when it's absolutely necessary. For now, feeding Ukraine a steady stream of 30 year old equipment is doing the job nicely.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          meanwhile on the same Wikipedia:
          >In April 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies, allegedly Chinese, had penetrated the database of the Joint Strike Fighter program and acquired terabytes of secret information.[62] AVIC is alleged to have incorporated the stolen knowledge into the J-31.[63][64][65]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31#Controversy

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It comes down to nukes you dumbass. You can't just inb4 that fact away because you have your head up your own ass

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks Ruzzian nukes still work
      back to the streets jeet, am i right everyone!???

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        even if 10% work that's enough to kill tens of millions of people minimum

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Too expensive compared to all money spent on Ukraine right now.
    Even ignoring nukes, it would guarantee a republican victory in the elections.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I believe I'm right in saying no two nuclear-armed states have been at war before. This would unironically be an actual escalation to unprecedented levels, unlike everything else Western politicians have tried to call "escalation" to excuse the reality that they have no balls and don't particularly care if Ukraine wins in some cases.
    >They're just bluffing
    If the survival of the Russian state is unironically reliant on them using nooooks (as opposed to the current stakes which amount to a few extra provinces and, one hopes, the credibility of the current Russian leadership) then that's the exact use case they were intended for. Nukes are primarily a political tool, not a military one, but if you want to look for a military application, this is precisely it. It's not comparable at all to Ukraine merely defending its own territories.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If the survival of the Russian state i
      The Russian state isn't going to cease to exist though, moron. No nation has the intention to completely eliminate a group or people from existence unless you're a Muslim or Arab. All that will happen is Putin and cronies will get executed, Russian imperialism/militarism ends up dead, and you have western friendly Russia in place doing trades and paying for reparations.

      I'm sick and tired of people pretending a nation will cease to exist just because they lose a war. Germany still exists even after WW2. Japan still exists after WW2. Italy still exists. Adding on, nations will continue even if nukes are exchanged.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm sick and tired of people pretending a nation will cease to exist just because they lose a war.
        part of the terms is that Ruzzia will be balkanized to prevent this from ever happening again.
        this isnt negotiable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >part of the terms
          Says who?

          >balkanized
          Oh no the non-Russian parts are now autonomous states in the east, the horror. The core region of Russia which are ethnic Russian will stay in Russia's possession, moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All the resources of Siberia are a big deal; that's where all of Russias oil and natgas are extracted

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There's no willpower to wage a fullblown world war or even Desert Storm to get rid of Putin.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because average american doesn't care much about foreign policy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The average /k/ also doesn’t care about foreign policy. When I try to explain US foreign policy objectives in Ukraine I just get banned. So whatever, you’re much happier in ignorance anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm ukrainian. It's just facts, America is the best at annihilating sandnigs with aks and rpgs but engaging in a war with nuclear power, even such pathetic as russia, is a different level. There are no politicans who are crazy enough and ready to ruin their career by making such hard decisions. Best you can do is full military support, because russia won't start shit against somebody much stronger than them, even if you'll send us 100 abrams per day.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To achieve what?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reportedly there’s someone in the administration who has successfully pushed Biden away from military action over the fear of nukes. Then they got fully committed to the soft power approach— isolate and strangle Russia for a big win politically without the risk of nukes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I find that extremely hard to believe. If Biden had seriously considered military action we'd all know about it. There's no way this late in you wouldn't have reems of former staffers claiming to have been "the one" at the NC that swayed the president to sell their book.

      >Do you think the Russians would twiddle their thumbs and do nothing? Or do you think they won't consider NATO massing being something they need to preemptively deal with?
      the eyebrow is raised
      the lips pursed,
      the red line is crossed

      ^thats probably how it would go right everyone!?
      lets all laugh at the thirdie who thinks muh red line means something

      when i say "F35"
      you say: "Sexoooooooooo"

      You're an actual idiot. Russia is a paranoid, schizophrenic nation that believes it is perceptually under siege. You cannot mass divisional sized forces, raise your nuclear alert posture, preposition strike aircraft/naval forces, open reserve stores etc without giving the game away.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You're an actual idiot. Russia is a paranoid, schizophrenic nation that believes it is perceptually under siege. You cannot mass divisional sized forces, raise your nuclear alert posture, preposition strike aircraft/naval forces, open reserve stores etc without giving the game away.
        >look everyone! the thirdie is back!
        meanwhile, day 700 of Putler 48hr brunch in keev
        remind me what red line were at?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It went down in the beginning. US could have told Russia to Get Out or else they’d be kicked out. That was exactly what the world was waiting for. Certainly after the first month when it became evident how much of a joke Russian military readiness was that option would be on the table. But Biden was convinced to settle on a soft power approach reportedly over the fear of nukes. They went all-in with soft-power and made it clear that they expected it to show results. Press was assured many times that it was squeezing Russia and that they’d fold. Turns out the soft power approach failed, but not a total loss politically and Biden is just going with that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sorry, but substantiate nothing. All you've done is repeat what you've said, but longer.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    @60695521
    Schizophrenic post.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because the American people are fricking pussies and cowards. A lot of the world's problem would be solved if the United States military could go "frick it mode" without the civilians being morons about cultural wars and "I support the troops so I'm going to handicap the shit out of them and get them killed until they come home."

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes. You can't just wave that off. Nukes are the only reason why NATO hasn't gotten directly involved. They'd actually learn a lot from it and it would have a lot of positive political and economic ramifications. The West desperately wants to regime change Russia and pacify it. The only thing standing in the way of all of this is: nukes. Lots of them.

    The Russians know this and so that's why I think that despite the abysmal performance of pretty much all other aspects of the Russian war machine that is evident in Ukraine, their nuclear missiles are competent and lethal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >their nuclear missiles are competent and lethal.
      I can hear the cab honks, and smell the shit from here

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We didn't let Saddam get away with conquering a tiny little speck on the world map called Kuwait
        You think Putin would be let off going for Ukraine for any reason OTHER than nukes? It is objectively and obviously the main reason nobody has invaded Russia to try and install a friendly regime.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ok buddy. You've figured out what NATO, the UN, and all of the developed world hasn't been able to figure out since the 1950s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if I continue to say their nukes aren't functional they'll just magically cease to be
        Of all the stupid games to play, I'm not looking to gain the stupidest prize

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The current status quo is more beneficial to the US than all out war. Several reasons I can think of are:
    - Ukrainians are already willing to fight for their own country, why should US citizens fight for Ukraine and create domestic issues?
    - Getting Russia out of regions they currently occupy does not really have pragmatic justification. It's a hit on Russia for sure, but part of these lands were pro-Russian to begin with and the lands they're currently occupying aren't really strategically critical.
    - US waging direct war against Russia would actually cause Russians to care about the war and they would be able to mobilize a lot more effectively against the US.
    - Getting domestic support for any of this is next to impossible so any response would be limited in scope.
    - There's a real risk of nuclear weapons falling in hands of random generals or rogue government if Russia were to collapse somehow. I don't think they would start WW3 intentionally but still it's not a risk reasonable people would take.

    In short, US supporting anti-Russian groups is not the same as US waging war against Russia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      3 million mobiks can't stack high enough to hit an F-22 with a rusty shovel.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it isn't our war. But you know that, you're just pretending to be moronic, like you do every time you make this comment.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >muh nukes
    you're too dumb to reason with

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Russia
    >Russia...
    >Why don't we rush B?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's more trouble than it's work, mostly because of nukes
    > Ukrainian drones hit cities in Russia regularly and nothing happened despite all the "final warnings" and "red lines"
    Yeah but if US decides to join in, who knows if Putin blows a fuse and pushes the big red button? Yeah, half of them probably aren't even operable but there's still the other half you have to deal with.
    And even if he retains a semblance of sanity and doesn't launch them, that's still a problem because once the Russian government collapses -because once they're defeated it's only a matter of time- every single wannabe revolutionary or terrorist group will want to gets its hands on one and it would be a real pain in the ass to secure them all, just like it was when Soviet Union fell.
    Man, I hate nukes, they make warfare and international politics so boring

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >than it's work
      than it's worth, dammit

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Congress is never gonna approve a war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No problem, just start a special military operation. 3 days in and out. EZPZ
      Jokes aside, as

      I'm ukrainian. It's just facts, America is the best at annihilating sandnigs with aks and rpgs but engaging in a war with nuclear power, even such pathetic as russia, is a different level. There are no politicans who are crazy enough and ready to ruin their career by making such hard decisions. Best you can do is full military support, because russia won't start shit against somebody much stronger than them, even if you'll send us 100 abrams per day.

      pointed out, no (sane) politician wants to be the guy who caused New York to become a glowing crater. Especially if they're from a party NYC votes for...

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because they know that russia would win and that means bye bye to taiwan and bye bye to israel

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why doesn't the US carry out a Desert Storm against Russian forces in Ukraine?
    Unironically because there's no financial incentive. Whatever money the MIC would make as a result of weapon expenditure wouldn't make up for the likely loss in international trade volume

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nato beg thread

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The west as a whole is too chickenshit to wage war
    That's why it will fall regardless of how incompetent the competition is

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The pattern of the post-WWII proxy wars is avoiding a direct confrontation between nuclear superpowers. For example, Afghanistan was a proxy against the USSR in the 1980s and Pakistan was the supply point. It is an indirect war between the US and Russia. In this case, Ukraine is the proxy and Poland is the supply point. Vietnam and Korea were both proxy wars between the US and China.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >between the US and China
      Honest question here: did north vietnam subscribe to the chinese version of communism or the soviet one?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >chinese version of communism or the soviet one
        first explain what you understand under this

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Google Sino-Soviet split

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            so it's not a question about communism but which side on the Sino-Soviet split North Vietnam landed? North-Vietnam was excluded from it and supported by both.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If I remember correctly, North Vietnam was always closer with the Soviets than China, although China did help them out during the war against the South and the US. China would actually later invade Vietnam after the north won, and China helped set up the Khmer Rouge, which was never friendly to Vietnam.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Vietnamese have always hated the Chinese. As to ideology, Ho Chi Minh learned Communism in Paris in the 1920s, putting him much closer to Lenin than Mao

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ho Chi Minh spoke Chinese but not Russian.
          Vietnamese land reform campaign was a carbon copy of the Chinese one.

          Mao was a Leninist.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because the US is already achieving its goals of destroying Russia without committing its military.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what is MAD
    This type of moronation is what happens when you sit in your moronic echo chamber for too long spamming tzd and slava ukraina.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>what is MAD
      Reagan giving up on MAD in the 1980s is literally what destroyed the Soviet Union

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Star Wars wasn't giving up on MAD; it was a challenge to intensify it, which the Soviets failed to rise to

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Ukraine beats Russia it will sulk, kick rocks and lick it's wounds but ultimately be fine. If the US/NATO attack it will be destroyed. Not physically, but ideologically - Russia will finally stop being able to pretend it's a major player, it will have to admit that it's not a sleeping bear but a wienerroach with all its legs torn off, able to do nothing but writhe in agony. People too apathetic to rebel will be roused into action, Russia has nukes, if their leaders will not answer this humiliation then the people will. One way or another Russia will (attempt) to nuke NATO and that could end the world. That is why the US/ NATO cannot send troops to Ukraine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Checked. Moreover, even if the current Russian government doesn't launch the nukes you can bet at least a warhead or two will go missing in the ensuing chaos, realistically it won't be a broken arrow but a fricking broken quiver. I hate the Russian state but they're cowards so we're safe in knowing they won't launch unless cornered

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it is very important to maintain the illusion of choice at a global level. If the US went to war with Russia, the global community would start saying the open secret out loud.

    There is no choice, there never has been a choice, the US doesn't need to conquer you because it already owns you, and if you feign sovereignty, its simply because the US has deemed that your resources are not currently part of its strategic interests.

    It gets more horrific when you start to understand the quality of life in the US is low because the enterprise of the US is firstly centered around global control, and it's civilian population is just secondary to that. Another resource to be consumed to enact the first goal, because the US is simply a consolidation point of power for very wealthy people. Its a time share of a unique system for people with power you cannot imagine. So...

    ...Live a simple, mundane, and uncomplicated life, stay below the radar of US interests. Don't ask for the US to bring war to your continent, for if you do; fight like no tomorrow for there surely will be none.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Muh nooks. But real reason, because it would bring us into a confrontation with China too. Now the issue isn't that the US couldn't beat China, rather it is that we would rather not make that sacrifice unless necessary.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it took months for the force buildup needed for desert storm

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because our military would do unspeakable things to Russians and shatter the world's economy.
    No oil, natural gas, food would be produced. India, China, Brazil would collapse. Russian civil wars would break out. Tens of millions of refugees flowing every direction. All electronics wouldn't work, all roads broken, all power plants destroyed, all hospitals gone, any food storage gone, rail roads gone, power, heat water gone, leadership gone, police gone. Nothing would remain but chaos. We wouldn't even invade.

    The world could not handle it. We are not nice people at war. Everyone would need to be killed from children to women. All gone. There are nukes involved. Total decimation.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's suicide rates may be sky-high, but they're not so suicidal as to be willing to sling nukes over something outside Moscow. I vote we start providing the frontlines with express air delivery of ammunition, with the arming fuses already set...

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because Russia has successfully compromised western politicians, telling them to look the other way. What makes you think the U.S. will give a shit when they have been half-assing their support the whole time? Ukraine struggles asking for gibs from the U.S, barely getting a fraction of what they need, let alone are being able to get the U.S. to directly intervene with their own forces to help. The U.S. can end this war tomorrow. They have chosen not to.

    Russia might be right, Europe and the U.S. are getting cold feet and I hate it

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This would mean war.
    The far easier ootion would be to send another fraction of their defense budget and have Ukrainians do the work for them.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >whats 1+1
    >inb4 2

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In a nuclear war Russia doesn’t really have that much to lose, they are already a shithole. USA on the other hand will love everything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tbh a lot of our cities would become nicer places to live if they got nuked. would also probably kill 95% of the democratic voting base

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the whole thing is a money laundering operation, nobody wants it to end

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why doesn't the US carry out a Desert Storm against Russian forces in Ukraine?

    Because Russia is estimated to have 532 strategic launchers with 1,674 nuclear warheads, around 2000 deployed tactical nuclear weapons and an additional 999 strategic warheads, along with 1,816 tactical warheads in its reserve stockpile.

    >Their numbers and military tech are just like that of Iraq in 1991.

    That's completely false and doesn't resemble reality in the the most generous interpretation possible. Are you moronic or something?

    > inb4 muh nukes

    Oh... oh I'm so sorry, I didn't think you actually were mentally defective.

    >Russia has been threatening to use nukes for 2 years now. Ukrainian drones hit cities in Russia regularly and nothing happened despite all the "final warnings" and "red lines".

    This is pretty routine behavior for a nuclear super power, the US has a long history of threatening to use nuclear weapons.

    >They're just bluffing.

    Yes, they are trying to coerce the Ukrainians into negotiations or surrender and the West into remaining uninvolved.

    But they have also signalled their intention to resort to nuclear first use if the US or NATO intervenes directly. I wouldn't take it as a hollow threat, the US and NATO sure haven't.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *