I feel that the more likely scenario is that they target NATO satellites, drones and other sensors that home in these weapons. Anything involving nukes would turn the world against Russia and play into NATO’s hand.
The issue is that activates article 5. I think Russia will want to avoid giving all the NATO nations an excuse to dogpile in. The DPRK has proven the effectiveness of doing tests as a deterrent.
The DPRK was successful in using nukes as a deterrent because it was long in question if the DPRK had a functional nuclear weapons program.
What does dropping a nuke in the middle of Siberia accomplish? “Oh wow, Russia has nukes. That’s a surprise. It’s not like they have the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world.”
What does Russia get out of destroying some random part of its country? Also Russia doesn’t have any Tsar bomba level nukes. No one does. One of would to be built from the ground up taking an absurd amount of money, resources, and manpower.
I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russias “Soviet Era” nukes still work. This would not only shut that talk up but demonstrate a willingness to use them. The west wants to be able to bomb Russia and thinks Russia isnt gonna use nukes in response. In order for it to be a deterrent you have to demonstrate you are capable and willing to use them.
Firstly, is that is just liberal media saber rattling. Even if you DID do a nuclear a test, do you think it would change their mind? No, they would probably just say that it was one of the only functional warheads that Russia had left and that now that they used it they must have nothing left. See: Russia is running out of ammunition stories that ran for years.
I have plenty of issues with the US military and I am continuously skeptical of their actual capabilities, but I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that they have intelligence on their enemies’ weapons programs. They are probably reasonably aware of Russian nuclear capabilities and the fact that they do in fact have weapons that are functional. Maybe not exact numbers, but they should be aware of the fact that they exist.
I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russia’s “Soviet Era” nukes still work.
I’ve seen articles like that too, and they strike me as propaganda – in other words, they’re intended for citizen consumption, as a way to drum up support for a (largely) unpopular war. Western militaries likely have a much more accurate picture of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Which is why Trump’s generals were so unhappy when, back in 2018, he went on twitter and personally threatened Assad with missile strikes; such things are hard to walk back, and US brass fully understood what war with Russia might entail. Even today, under an administration that is much more hardline neocon than Trump’s, you’ve gotten US generals – Mark Milley, for instance, a very sorry and two-faced character – talking out of both sides of their mouths on Ukraine: we’re committed to defending Ukraine, but, we want to stop Putin’s agression, but…
I think what we are seeing right now with Biden is not exactly an attempt to go to war with Russia. Rather, it’s dangerous, irresponsible, and utterly criminal brinkmanship: politicians playing Kissinger without having an ounce of Kissinger’s geopolitical saavy. It could also be an attempt to hurt Trump, whom Biden and so many democrats seem to have a personal animus against; for when bourgeois states reach this late stage of corruption, and when there’s a division in the ruling class like that we see in America today, vendettas can become a real factor in politics. In other words, what Biden wants to do is leave an enormous mess for Trump to sort out, and he’s hoping that that mess won’t go (quite literally) thermonuclear.
Or the US ruling could really be just that crazy. I hope not.
The American war Ponzi is the perverse inverse of their domestic one. At home, they defraud money by at least building infrastructure. Abroad, they make money by destroying it.
This is the great innovation of American Empire. Figuring out that there’s more money in losing wars than winning them. Only America attacks other places to loot their own treasury. They spent an absolutely soulless $2.3 trillion destroying Afghanistan and didn’t ‘get’ anything much in return. So what do you do when you’re running a Ponzi and one scheme goes belly up? You have to get the sucker into a new con, quickly. As that Wolf Of Wall Street said:
“You get another brilliant idea, a special idea, another situation, another stock to reinvest his earnings and entice him, and he will, every single time, 'cause they’re addicted.”
To cover up the loss of Afghanistan America invaded Iraq. When that went screwy they invaded Libya, then Syria. That wasn’t enough so they went even bigger, provoking Russia by corrupting Ukraine. The Ponzi Empire leaves a trail of destruction wherever they go, but the jig is only up if they stop. So they never stop. This is a big reason America keeps starting war after war after war. They’ve got to keep the scam going. As Marohn says, “like any Ponzi scheme, as soon as the rate of growth slows, it all goes bad very quickly.” Which is the point we’re getting to now. America is pushing up against countries like China, Russia, and Iran that it cannot actually intimidate like the innocent civilians and weddings it’s used to bombing from afar. We have finally reached the end of this fatal Ponzi. The scams are getting closer and closer together and running into each other. People are beginning to see, and soon they’ll start withdrawing their money.
The reason I think of it is: some of it may be drinking their own koolaid and some of it may be a sort of desperation to keep the con going.
I think the con started before the people in charge now were born and their parents never taught them its a con so they fell for it too. Theyre continuing a con without realizing its one, and without understanding the consequences.
I’d argue that as of 2024, a whole lot of Americans actually do realize it’s a con. Hence a big part of the support for Trump, since there’s this weird perception that he’s anti-war. That perception is based less on anything he’s actually said, and more on the fact that everybody associates foreign wars with Bush and the neocons and the whole class of professional politicians that has sprung up over the past few decades; that political establishment dislikes and tries to smear Trump, ergo Trump must be anti-war. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But it’s an idea which has gotten itself into the heads of a lot of Americans, working-class Americans in particular.
I feel that the more likely scenario is that they target NATO satellites, drones and other sensors that home in these weapons. Anything involving nukes would turn the world against Russia and play into NATO’s hand.
The issue is that activates article 5. I think Russia will want to avoid giving all the NATO nations an excuse to dogpile in. The DPRK has proven the effectiveness of doing tests as a deterrent.
The DPRK was successful in using nukes as a deterrent because it was long in question if the DPRK had a functional nuclear weapons program.
What does dropping a nuke in the middle of Siberia accomplish? “Oh wow, Russia has nukes. That’s a surprise. It’s not like they have the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world.”
What does Russia get out of destroying some random part of its country? Also Russia doesn’t have any Tsar bomba level nukes. No one does. One of would to be built from the ground up taking an absurd amount of money, resources, and manpower.
I have actually seen liberal media speculating on if Russias “Soviet Era” nukes still work. This would not only shut that talk up but demonstrate a willingness to use them. The west wants to be able to bomb Russia and thinks Russia isnt gonna use nukes in response. In order for it to be a deterrent you have to demonstrate you are capable and willing to use them.
There are a couple issues I see with this.
Firstly, is that is just liberal media saber rattling. Even if you DID do a nuclear a test, do you think it would change their mind? No, they would probably just say that it was one of the only functional warheads that Russia had left and that now that they used it they must have nothing left. See: Russia is running out of ammunition stories that ran for years.
I have plenty of issues with the US military and I am continuously skeptical of their actual capabilities, but I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that they have intelligence on their enemies’ weapons programs. They are probably reasonably aware of Russian nuclear capabilities and the fact that they do in fact have weapons that are functional. Maybe not exact numbers, but they should be aware of the fact that they exist.
I’ve seen articles like that too, and they strike me as propaganda – in other words, they’re intended for citizen consumption, as a way to drum up support for a (largely) unpopular war. Western militaries likely have a much more accurate picture of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Which is why Trump’s generals were so unhappy when, back in 2018, he went on twitter and personally threatened Assad with missile strikes; such things are hard to walk back, and US brass fully understood what war with Russia might entail. Even today, under an administration that is much more hardline neocon than Trump’s, you’ve gotten US generals – Mark Milley, for instance, a very sorry and two-faced character – talking out of both sides of their mouths on Ukraine: we’re committed to defending Ukraine, but, we want to stop Putin’s agression, but…
I think what we are seeing right now with Biden is not exactly an attempt to go to war with Russia. Rather, it’s dangerous, irresponsible, and utterly criminal brinkmanship: politicians playing Kissinger without having an ounce of Kissinger’s geopolitical saavy. It could also be an attempt to hurt Trump, whom Biden and so many democrats seem to have a personal animus against; for when bourgeois states reach this late stage of corruption, and when there’s a division in the ruling class like that we see in America today, vendettas can become a real factor in politics. In other words, what Biden wants to do is leave an enormous mess for Trump to sort out, and he’s hoping that that mess won’t go (quite literally) thermonuclear.
Or the US ruling could really be just that crazy. I hope not.
I think a lot of it is just the US elites drinking their own koolaid. Theyre just that deluded.
I’m reminded of this part from Indi’s article on the US military: https://indi.ca/nothing-to-see-here-just-the-wheels-falling-off-empire/
The reason I think of it is: some of it may be drinking their own koolaid and some of it may be a sort of desperation to keep the con going.
I think the con started before the people in charge now were born and their parents never taught them its a con so they fell for it too. Theyre continuing a con without realizing its one, and without understanding the consequences.
I’d argue that as of 2024, a whole lot of Americans actually do realize it’s a con. Hence a big part of the support for Trump, since there’s this weird perception that he’s anti-war. That perception is based less on anything he’s actually said, and more on the fact that everybody associates foreign wars with Bush and the neocons and the whole class of professional politicians that has sprung up over the past few decades; that political establishment dislikes and tries to smear Trump, ergo Trump must be anti-war. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But it’s an idea which has gotten itself into the heads of a lot of Americans, working-class Americans in particular.