Sand_Pebble : interesting replies.
But I’d like to expand on your “small nuke on Ukrain” comment. Imagine that instead of that, Vlad simply drops the smallest tactical - not strategic - nuke on Kursk region of Russia (not
Ukraine). Now that would be a game changer.
1 Like
(wrong post)
Since I made my last comment I read up on the 32 member states of NATO & some of their leaders. Not a one of them jumped out at me as being ballsy or pro-Ukraine enough to be the advocate to start a “tit for tat” nuclear war with Russia. Also, the pro-WW3 crowd on here haven’t mentioned anything about NATO members parliaments or Congresses. I guess they are implying a US President or a PM can start dropping nuclear bombs on the behalf of a non-NATO member without a declaration of war? As for me, it shouldn’t matter if the US President is Republican or Democrat, I don’t think a POTUS should have the power to do such a thing without Congress consent. These people must have a lot more faith in the incoming President than I do? Pro Vietnam War/ Second Iraq Invasion type warmongers imo.
1 Like
I’m curious who you think is pro-WWIII here. Anticipating reciprocal NATO or other western response to Russian aggression is not war mongering. It’s logical foreign relations. You can’t go around invading other countries and expect everyone to just ignore it or pretend it didn’t happen. This is especially true in Europe where geographical proximity and interconnectivity and dependence economically cause greater impact to other western countries. The invasion of Ukraine already has caused reactions from NATO or NATO aligned countries that wouldn’t have been imaginable just a short time ago. Case in point both Finland and Sweden joined NATO shortly after Russia’s invasion. For decades all through the cold war Finland and Sweden never tried to join NATO but kept comfortably aloof, working both sides and feeling fairly safe about it all. Now, of all times, that changes, resulting in Putin’s supposed fear and outrage of NATO only helping to make NATO stronger with two more member nations. Finland and Sweden know that their best move with an unpredictable and posturing tyrant for a neighbor is to get in the club of mutual protection with some of the biggest economies and biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet.
I don’t think anyone in NATO wants to “start” a tit for tat, but it’s Putin who started down this road with his move into sovereign Ukraine territory. Now if any nukes are used on Ukraine, Poland is going to get real nervous real fast and any reservations from France or Turkey are going to be quickly overwhelmed by those NATO countries who feel for good reason like some of their sovereign territory could easily be next targets for Putin’s hit parade.
I totally agree that in the US, ALL war powers should rest with congress as the constitution intended. However the new administration has congress totally under control and no significant amount of politicians from that party are going to stand up and oppose anything the new president wants. The results of the most recent election means if he asks for it, he’s going to get it, as fast as they can give it to him.
2 Likes
Since you’re asking, re-read comment #25 by @freighterman1 . I would call him & the 6 commenters who heart’ed that post as pro-WW3’ers. In that comment liked by so many he states, “If Putin uses a tactical nuke then NATO will respond in kind. It can’t not respond.” & again “…if Russia uses a nuke then NATO must retaliate in kind.”. No where does he mentions NATO members congresses or parliaments nor Article 5 of the NATO treaty. He barely hints at other NATO’s members or their presidents/PM’s. He makes it sound like it should be another US cowboy run at policing the world like Iraq, Panama & Vietnam. I love Article 5 of the NATO treaty but if India or Pakistan nukes the other the POTUS shouldn’t pick a side & start dropping nuclear bombs in retaliation without Congressional consent. Neither are a part of NATO!?
Furthermore, Frances Marcon will not be in favor of “tit for tat” nuclear bomb drops as implied in comment #25. But his conservative political opponents will attack him without mercy if doesn’t because politics is a game. The same for Trump liberal opponents in the US. But war & nuclear bombs aren’t a game. Anyone who suggests or likes the suggestion of using nuclear bombs for non-personal or non-NATO defense is a warmonger IMO. We should Charlie Wilson Russia to death in Ukraine like we did in Afghanistan if we can but no US/NATO bombs on Russia soil or nukes. That’s too much escalation on our part in my opinion. Like my opposition to the second Iraq War & Vietnam, this Ukraine conflict is as plane as day to me.
Edit: I also would like to add the person who made comment #30 & anyone who heart’ed that comment. I believed the media & liberals when they claimed Trump was trying to start WW3 when he was calling Jim Jung rocketman & little boy. Fast forward 2 yrs & a US President IS IN North Korea shaking hands & hugging our 70 yrs enemy!! Holy fucking shit. I was smiling ear to ear over that. I want the people of North & South Korea not to live in fear of an invasion of the other & our US troops stationed back home. We were closer to peace than we ever were. Anybody who wants the status quo or escalation on the Korean peninsula is a warmonger imo. If Trump had another 4 more years he could have ended that war & would have been THE contender for the Nobel Peace Prize. What in the heck would be wrong with that?
1 Like
The reason WW3 has not broken out in 70 years, IMO, is because of nuclear weapons.
I did not come up with this idea myself. I read it in a bio of the British writer/poet Robert Graves. Graves fought in the trenches throughout WW1, where he saw most of his friends killed or maimed for life. His eldest son died fighting in Africa in WW2. Graves was no fan of war.
In the 1960s he was talking to a young man, who supposed that Graves, because of his abhorrence to war, must be anti-nuclear weapons.
Graves told his young friend he was the opposite. The only thing that had prevented WW3 breaking out, Graves said, with a greater death toll and devastation than the previous two wars, was because of MAD. Nuclear weapons and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction were, in Graves’ opinion, the only thing that prevented billions of people from dying in another conventional war far more destructive than the previous two. MAD assured that the nuclear powers would be far less less willing to come to direct blows.
If one side choses to use tactical nukes and the other side does not reciprocate, then a conventional WW3 breaks out, and billions die, because the side that uses tactical nukes unilaterally has every reason to go to war. They will always win. To defend themselves their opponents will resort to tactical nukes also, leading to general use of nuclear weapons.
So, the only sane choice to prevent billions dying is for no one to use nuclear weapons to begin with.
That is the wisdom of a writer /poet who has seen more death and suffering than any of us have, so I listen to him.
1 Like
I agree with you on this. Graves sounds like a smart man. The only problem with you using this argument is Russia hasn’t threaten to use nuclear weapons on the US or any NATO country. Nor has Russia used or threaten to use their conventional weapons on the US or any NATO countries. But you & other likeminded people say we should retaliate with nukes on the behalf of a non-NATO member if Russia uses nukes & support NATO bombs & guidance systems being used to kill Russians on Russia soil?!? Sure, without a doubt, Russia instigated the war in Ukraine. But without a treaty with Ukraine, who’s instigating what between NATO & Russia? BTW, the Budapest Memorandum didn’t state we would go to war to defend Ukraine, just that Russia wouldn’t invade. Thats what NATO is for. Why even have NATO if we can just pick what countries we can go to war with Russia over?
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Once one country uses a tactical nuke anywhere, it allows any country to use a tactical nukes anywhere. That’s power politics. Therefore all countries will rush to get tactical nukes, and they will use them. Once one country uses them, the use of tactical nukes will become commonplace.
The only thing that prevents that from happening is the fear of retaliation.
Really, it’s no different than having a killer shoot someone on the street. If you don’t arrest the shooter, they will just keep on shooting. They don’t have to shoot you. They don’t have to shoot anyone in your family, or even in your neighborhood. But if you don’t arrest them they will keep shooting until someone you know gets shot. Or, until everyone else gets a gun and starts shooting anyone they suspect of the being the gunmen. Chaos, So, the police arrest the original shooter. Or shoot him.
But you can’t arrest a country. So, you let the leaders of that country know if they use a tactical nuke, they too will be nuked.
1 Like
I think you might be misinterpreting the “like” element for these posts and what that means. I believe when most people “like” these posts, they don’t necessarily “like” the idea of WWIII or the concept of escalation to a nuclear conflict, quite the opposite in most cases. They instead are “liking” the post as in agreeing with the sentiment, that the logic is correct and sound and that they agree that that is what would happen. I don’t think anyone “likes” the use of nuclear weapons, small, medium, or large, and again harkens to why they have not been used for 80 years and will likely and hopefully never be used.
I’m sorry that the current “threat” of nuclear war causes you such consternation but please keep in mind we are so much further away from nuclear war than we were 40 years ago. The actual threat of nuclear Armageddon right now is very small. Add in the fact that the US just wrapped up the longest war in our country’s history that was begun with pretty faulty logic and I don’t think there’s much risk of the US acting directly in a conflict for a while, unless someone really forces their hand. However I do believe the use of a nuke in Ukraine or action against Taiwan would both be major triggers for US action or at least increased involvement.
1 Like
The US can literally pick what nations we go to war over or what threatened nations we choose to defend. Just because a country is non-NATO doesn’t mean we won’t defend them. This list includes: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc. All Non-NATO countries. Also recall we liberated and defended Kuwait after it was invaded by Iraq. The US as the single greatest super power now or ever, has since the end of WWII assumed the role of world’s policeman. I am in no way saying this is right or should be supported, it’s just the way things have been and continue to be. In addition certain areas of the world get even more interest and response from the US, such as any goings on in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and any major Oil Producing nations. Any actions by communist countries also used to be opposed by the US but that isn’t really the threat it once was. NATO is just one of our many commitments and even all out treaties and agreements don’t limit us from intervening in situations deemed important to National Interests or global stability, especially as it relates to trade, foreign markets, and capitalism.
The fact that Ukraine is not in NATO doesn’t mean that Russia can do whatever they want and every NATO country has to stand back with their hands in their pockets. The US can go to war with whomever they see fit (other than a NATO country) whether or not NATO agrees. NATO just obligates a combined response from member states if another member state is threatened. Some, none, or all of NATO could choose to defend Ukraine in whatever way they want (funding, armaments, supplies, advisors, intelligence, boots on the ground) but it wouldn’t be based on NATO charter obligation but instead in the mutual interest of defending another European nation’s sovereignty from a foreign invading power.
Think of it as defending a neighbors house from burglars. Sure the burglars aren’t stealing your stuff but it makes sense to defend others houses to ensure that burglars don’t think they can just get away with it.
I’m also a strong believer that the US supporting Ukraine is less about Ukraine/Russia and more about Taiwan/China. The US very much wants to demonstrate to China that we take defending a smaller sovereign nation seriously to hopefully avoid a shooting war with China. For as bad as a shooting war with Russia would be, a war with China would be MUCH worse, and unfortunately is much more likely. In such a scenario we also wouldn’t have the strength of a unified NATO but would likely have to rely on allies such as Japan, Philippines, and maybe Australia or India. By supporting Ukraine we are signaling to China without actually having to engage them. To me the signal to China is absolutely the main reason the US is so publicly supporting Ukraine.
1 Like
This is correct & why I said the people who want to escalate a war or a direct confrontation with Russia are the pro-2nd Iraq War, pro-Vietnam War, pro-Panama Invasion crowd. Uncle Sam, police of the world, sending the loyalest & bravest overseas to die so we can put their names on a wall somewhere & play a trumpet when they are read out load. We’ve been there & done that. I call bullshit.
But again, it’s not just the US who approved to use our ATAMCS & our guidance system to murder Russians on Russia soil, it was NATO. And since Russia can’t win a ground war with NATO we run into a catastrophic problem. In the Art of War Sun Tzu said, “When you surround an army leave an outlet free. Don’t press a desperate foe too hard.” When the desperate foe has an arsenal of nuclear weapons it’s even more important to listen to Tzu council. Biden authorizing our NATO proxy to use our ATAMCS to kill Russians in their barracks inside the country of Russia is a bridge too far. And if you are worried about China then we are definitely on the wrong path bombing inside of Russia. North Korea & Russia signed a mutual defense pact 3 weeks ago. Any direct conflict with Russia could likely mean US troops stationed in South Korea being bombed by the North. How long do you think China would wait to get in on the action? The current administration really fucked us over with those ATAMCS imo. I say 50/50 chance China signs onto the Russia/NK mutual defense pact BTW. Then, truely, we will no longer be the super power we once were.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-signs-mutual-defence-treaty-with-north-korea-2024-11-09/
Proud Prophet war game in 1983 demonstrated nuclear war quickly spirals out of control. The lessons learned then apply even more today
1 Like
For reference about Proud Prophet 1983 & why we shouldn’t bet the farm on the MAD philosophy preventing a nuclear holocaust. Also, below that link is an example of how we should have ketp fighting Putin instead of escalating even farther by using our ATAMCS to attack inside of the country of Russia. Even if/when Ukraine eventually fell, the guerrilla warfare afterwards would have ate up Russia for years until their eventual collapse or Putins death.
1 Like
Blame Putin for that, not the US or Ukraine. Putin can end it any the he chooses.
Seriously, you’re priorities are messed up.
2 Likes
I suggest reading “The Ghost at the Feast-America and the Collapse of World Order, 1900-1941”.
The chapters dealing with Wilson’s attempts (whether he was right or wrong is certainly a broad discussion) to keep the US out of WW I and the long term impacts of our involvement make for good reading. The world is not a simple place and while “what if” discussions are a great mental exercise, they are nothing other than coffee discussions because we deal with the geopolitics that exist, not what we wish they could have been.
1 Like
To try and bring this discussion back on point…
Does anyone here know Phelan’s history?
Did he serve in the Navy?
Any branch of the military?
What are his views on seapower?
No to ever being in the military. He is a hedge fund guy that manages Michael Dell’s investments. Has a MBA from Harvard and likes to collect art.
No known views on seapower though he likely knows people with yachts. Should be fine as Navy secretary 
That’s what I was afraid of
well he has this going for him - from wiki
In August 2024, John and Amy Phelan hosted a private fundraising dinner for Trump at their $38 million home in Aspen, Colorado, with guests including Steve Wynn, Thomas Peterffy, Greg Abbott, Byron Donalds, Lauren Boebert, and Cory Gardner
understand some guests wore navy
1 Like