3 ms·

I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also resul

by mrits 4y ago

I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also result in the removal of Russia from the planet.

mordnis 4y ago
I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.
- mrits 4y ago
  Without a doubt NATO would release every single nuke needed to make sure Russia can't launch another missile. We'd take tremendous damage and introduce a possibility of nuclear winter, but we aren't going to sit around and wonder what other targets Russia has in mind. So yeah, we'd blast them back before the first nukes even landed.
  - maratc 4y ago
    Interesting. And what would be your suggestions on the nuclear missiles that are based on Russian submarines that are wandering somewhere in the ocean?
    - meepmorp 4y ago
      Attack subs. The US alone has 60 nuclear ones, able to pursue Russian missile boats.
      - maratc 4y ago
        Considering that each nuclear sub has 80-100 warheads that are enough to destroy an entire continent, and considering it takes about an hour to fire them while underwater, do you suggest to attack the subs before they fire or after? How do you suggest to locate them?
        meepmorp 4y ago
        Do you think that the US doesn't actively track the location of Russian missile subs? There's a limited number of sub pens and they're visible on satellite. And tracking missile subs is a big part of the attack sub's role. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not nearly as impossible or hopeless as you seem to think.
    - mrits 4y ago
      Every Russian sub is shadowed by a US sub.
maratc 4y ago
> the removal of Russia from the planet The smartest people on the planet, since the 60's, have worked on this problem, and that's how we got to the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (triad and all that). That means that this "removal" would likely also mean a symmetrical "removal" of the West. I have a privilege to live in neither a NATO country nor Russia, nor anywhere near, so for me it still looks like a chess game, but the stakes are unbearably high.
- signatoremo 4y ago
  You just repeat Russia’s propaganda — thinly veiled thread of nuclear war. The fact is that Russia won’t use it, because nobody will attack Russia. They threaten to use nuke the same way North Korea show off their missile tests, because they have no other option. They know full well that using it will mean the end of Russia, even though it may cause severe damages, or the other end, to NATO countries To Russia bullying, cyberwar, energy as weapon, or misinformation make a lot more sense.
  - maratc 4y ago
    I can’t “repeat Russia’s propaganda” because I never listen to it. I stick to the facts. If Russian propaganda machine says that E=mc2, we can’t dismiss that because “Russian propaganda said so” and hence it must be a lie.

by mrits 4y ago

mordnis 4y ago

I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.

mrits 4y ago
Without a doubt NATO would release every single nuke needed to make sure Russia can't launch another missile. We'd take tremendous damage and introduce a possibility of nuclear winter, but we aren't going to sit around and wonder what other targets Russia has in mind. So yeah, we'd blast them back before the first nukes even landed.
- maratc 4y ago
  Interesting. And what would be your suggestions on the nuclear missiles that are based on Russian submarines that are wandering somewhere in the ocean?
  - meepmorp 4y ago
    Attack subs. The US alone has 60 nuclear ones, able to pursue Russian missile boats.
    - maratc 4y ago
      Considering that each nuclear sub has 80-100 warheads that are enough to destroy an entire continent, and considering it takes about an hour to fire them while underwater, do you suggest to attack the subs before they fire or after? How do you suggest to locate them?
      - meepmorp 4y ago
        Do you think that the US doesn't actively track the location of Russian missile subs? There's a limited number of sub pens and they're visible on satellite. And tracking missile subs is a big part of the attack sub's role. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not nearly as impossible or hopeless as you seem to think.
  - mrits 4y ago
    Every Russian sub is shadowed by a US sub.

maratc 4y ago

> the removal of Russia from the planet The smartest people on the planet, since the 60's, have worked on this problem, and that's how we got to the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (triad and all that). That means that this "removal" would likely also mean a symmetrical "removal" of the West. I have a privilege to live in neither a NATO country nor Russia, nor anywhere near, so for me it still looks like a chess game, but the stakes are unbearably high.

signatoremo 4y ago
You just repeat Russia’s propaganda — thinly veiled thread of nuclear war. The fact is that Russia won’t use it, because nobody will attack Russia. They threaten to use nuke the same way North Korea show off their missile tests, because they have no other option. They know full well that using it will mean the end of Russia, even though it may cause severe damages, or the other end, to NATO countries To Russia bullying, cyberwar, energy as weapon, or misinformation make a lot more sense.
- maratc 4y ago
  I can’t “repeat Russia’s propaganda” because I never listen to it. I stick to the facts. If Russian propaganda machine says that E=mc2, we can’t dismiss that because “Russian propaganda said so” and hence it must be a lie.