- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
@metal-brain saidMAD was an official strategy of the pro-nuke military planners of the Cold War, you utter mental ragdoll.
Mutually assured destruction is big fat myth spread by the anti nuclear movement. It is nothing short of a lie.
02 May 22
@Shallow-Blue
MB's POV is total love of Putin, would not be the least bit surprise he isn't on their payroll.
03 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidIt is irrelevant what tactical nukes are designed for. All that matters is what the result of their use will be. It will be a good excuse for the USA to get into a direct military conflict with Russia......WW3.
Google tactical nukes you halfwit they are designed for use on the battlefield not as an opening salvo for Armageddon.
So now you have to argue that WW3 will not lead to nuclear war after a tactic nuke is used on the battlefield. Good luck with that....moron!
03 May 22
@shallow-blue saidLOL!
MAD was an official strategy of the pro-nuke military planners of the Cold War, you utter mental ragdoll.
MAD was an official strategy as a BS excuse to increase our nuclear arsenal to achieve MAD, which we apparently have not done yet. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"Most disappointing for progressives is the Biden administration’s apparent endorsement of the Trump administration’s decision to spend big in “modernizing” America’s nuclear forces — a decision that could cost the nation upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next fifteen years and as much as $634 billion over the next ten years"
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/01/biden-budget-bakes-in-billions-for-nuclear-weapons/
Apparently we will not reach the MAD threshold for at least another decade.
Ask Biden when he expects to reach the MAD goal so he can stop building more and more nukes.
Why would you believe a war monger like Robert McNamara?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
03 May 22
@metal-brain saidExactly. We agree it was a lie, but you erroneously attributed it to the anti nuclear movement, when it was in fact a (dishonest, yes) policy of the pro-nuke Pentagon and Kremlin.
MAD was an official strategy as a BS excuse to increase our nuclear arsenal to achieve MAD, which we apparently have not done yet.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@shallow-blue saidMAD became the US strategy because the Soviet Union's thinking at the time was that a nuclear war was winnable.
MAD was an official strategy of the pro-nuke military planners of the Cold War, you utter mental ragdoll.
MAD was one step shy of the Doomsday Bomb concept.
03 May 22
@shallow-blue saidHave you ever considered the possibility it was both?
Exactly. We agree it was a lie, but you erroneously attributed it to the anti nuclear movement, when it was in fact a (dishonest, yes) policy of the pro-nuke Pentagon and Kremlin.
The anti nuclear movement started that nonsense and it was a convenient excuse to expand the nuclear arsenal based on the false premises it would make us safer, yet the nuclear arsenal is being expanded by Biden after Trump expanded nukes and it will keep expanding.
Tell me, why cannot it be both? The same rhetoric serves both agendas.
If I am wrong write Biden and tell him the error of his ways. See how much of a difference you make by telling him MAD is real and all POTUS' are idiots.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
03 May 22
@metal-brain saidI was alive at the time, unlike you, so no.
Have you ever considered the possibility it was both?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
03 May 22
@jj-adams saidNo, MAD became the US strategy because they didn't understand the Soviet situation at all and were immensely paranoid.
MAD became the US strategy because the Soviet Union's thinking at the time was
That's not a defense of the USSR. They, too, were immensely paranoid. But the US military at the time really overestimated the USSR's willingness to go into all-out war, and more or less based their opinion of their enemy's aggression on the belief that its mindset would be identical to their own.
04 May 22
@metal-brain saidThe USA has more than a good enough excuse to get into a war with Russia right now given that Russia has invaded a sovereign state on NATOs border but it’s much better to keep equipping Ukraine to defend itself all the while it can. Whilst destroying the Russian economy in the medium to long term.
It is irrelevant what tactical nukes are designed for. All that matters is what the result of their use will be. It will be a good excuse for the USA to get into a direct military conflict with Russia......WW3.
So now you have to argue that WW3 will not lead to nuclear war after a tactic nuke is used on the battlefield. Good luck with that....moron!
Given that Moscow has been waging an unspoken asymmetric war on the US and the West for over a decade this realisation of Moscow's intentions has been a long time coming.
Better late than never though.
04 May 22
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou do realise your a halfwit right. Like many halfwits here you keep getting Putin’s gambling instincts confused with suicidal tendencies you also keep confusing Russia of today with the super power that was the Soviet Union / Russian empire.
I’m not advocating a war between the US and Russia I’m looking forward to the day that Putin’s regime collapses and the Russian people realise that alignment with western democratic and liberal governments is a much better future than being Beijing’s poodle on its western flank