Author Topic: Armageddon - what are your plans?  (Read 1426 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Armageddon - what are your plans?
« on: March 25, 2022, 05:44:19 PM »
Quote
Russian state media is flat out saying that a peacekeeping force by a NATO member (Poland) into Ukraine means nuclear war.

I'm beginning to think the Russians might do us all a favor with Armageddon. Sure, we'll wind up dead but at least we won't be around to watch the Republicans and Democrats try and pin the blame on each other. Just call humanity one big mulligan for the divine force. Is it too late for me to pick an afterlife and become a devotee? Reincarnation used to sound pretty good, but not if Earth is a radioactive dust bowl. The Mormons seem like they might have a good setup, its probably too late in the game to get the VIP seats but I might be able to avoid the outer darkness. Definitely not hooking up with the evangelicals - I'd either have to spend eternity with that insufferable lot or roast in damnation.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2022, 06:33:25 PM »
I don't think we're that lucky.  Really, the taboo on nuclear weapon use has been really really strong over the last 75 years.  Even at the height of tensions.  Even during all these fantasy "close calls".  Even with LeMay and MacArthur screaming "nuke em!".  Even under Russian nuclear strategy, it wouldn't lead to Armageddon.  So many things have to go wrong. 

Most likely way it breaks out is Russia uses a single tac nuke to test the waters.  Probably within Ukraine.  But they're pretty well deterred since Grandpa has said the US would respond.  So the NATO nuclear umbrella has basically been extended over Ukraine. But if it did happen, it likely wouldn't be some massive strike.  It's not Russian style or Pooter style.  "Just the tip".  So a single tac nuke goes off to see what NATO does and to force NATO to put pressure on Ukraine to end the war with the Russians holding the Donbass and Crimea.  Pooter declares victory.  NATO declares they prevented nuclear war.  The US may or may not respond one of two ways.  They could respond with a tac nuke strike on a Russian airbase or logistical center within Russia, or they can simply decide to enter the war conventionally. 

That's not what Pooter wants.  Pooter needs to raise the pot so that NATO would rather just have a cease fire than continue the war, and pressure Ukraine to accept whatever is offered (giving up the Donbass), so if the response is simply to finally enter the war conventionally, Pooter will continue to try and escalate nucularly. 

The other alternative, nuking a Russian airbase or logistics center inside Russia, is going to cause Pooter to demand that the existence of Russia is at stake and start warning about strategic nuclear attacks on the United States.  More pressure to put on Ukraine to accept a cease fire with Russia keeping the Donbass. 

So far this is just regular nuclear war.  Nice and slow and tactical instead of what you see in horror movies.  Where it gets out of hand is if Biden basically goes to far and starts hitting mutliple targets inside of Russia with Tomahawk nukes, attempting to disarm Russia nuclear wise.  This will cause Russia to feel they have to respond by hitting NATO nuclear bases in Europe.  At this point it would get out of hand with NATO and Europe screaming mad and the Europeans now ready to hit strategic targets.  If NATO and Europe doesn't stop hitting Russia, Russia will eventually hit Europe and the United States with strategic nuclear weapons, though maybe not all at once.  Again, the attempt would be made because Russia wants the war to STOP! WE'RE LOSING! STOP!.  But if it looks like NATO will not stop, Russia will go full bore and yes we'll have Armageddon. 

The good news is that China, South America, Australia, and Africa will be around to pick up the pieces from the irradiated northern hemisphere.  It won't be the end of humanity.  I think that's hyperbolic ridiculous talk from people who know absolutely nothing about nuclear war and they have not disabused me of that belief.  But it will be the end of the "golden age" of humanity.  You'll have a new "dark ages" period. 

You could do worse than the Mormons.  Pretty friendly people.  Easy to convert I think.  But the wiccans seem to be really fun and might have the funnest afterlife, along with the old norse religious people etc.  I mean, they're ridiculous (sorry Wiccans, feel free to ridicule Catholics and Catholicism), but they're fun. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2022, 12:35:06 AM »
When the archduke got his ticket punched I bet a lot of people were saying, it'll never come to that, and then WW1 happened anyway.

As for the more interesting part of this discussion, deliberately separated to encourage whimsy rather than a serious contemplation of the willingness of humanity to incinerate itself rather than accept a loss of face, I'm not familiar with the wiccan concept of an afterlife. What do they have going on?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2022, 08:11:53 AM »
As for the more interesting part of this discussion, deliberately separated to encourage whimsy rather than a serious contemplation of the willingness of humanity to incinerate itself rather than accept a loss of face, I'm not familiar with the wiccan concept of an afterlife. What do they have going on?

The Summerlands.  I dunno, man.  Hopefully orgies and wine with everybody perpetually 22 years old. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2022, 09:40:25 AM »
Do they have hangovers in heaven? I mean, I'm assuming one you're done with your corporeal existence, that goes away. Does the wine still get you drinks though?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2022, 10:04:34 AM »
Do they have hangovers in heaven? I mean, I'm assuming one you're done with your corporeal existence, that goes away. Does the wine still get you drinks though?

Yes, the wine gets you drunk and also acts like Viagra, and you can never get too drunk. You just stay at that perfect level.  But no hangovers and you can become undrunk at will, just like in Star Trek. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2022, 02:52:11 PM »
The Mormons seem like they might have a good setup, its probably too late in the game to get the VIP seats but I might be able to avoid the outer darkness.

About the only way for you to be eligible for "the Outer Darkness" in the Mormon setup is to have knowingly conversed with either a literal Angel of God, or God himself, and then denied it. Although there is some additional wriggle room with "sinned against the holy ghost" as well, IIRC. But given what the other examples were, I'm thinking it would need to be a very major offense, and likely multiple occurrences, to be cast out that way.

Especially given what's been said about who you'd likely encounter in the lowest degree of glory. Honestly, I think most people leading relatively normal and moral lives by the ("traditional") American/western European standard would end up in the 2nd degree of Glory after all is said and done, no meaningful effort required, just try to be a good person and be reasonably effective at implementing it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2022, 03:01:37 PM »
Most likely way it breaks out is Russia uses a single tac nuke to test the waters.  Probably within Ukraine.  But they're pretty well deterred since Grandpa has said the US would respond.  So the NATO nuclear umbrella has basically been extended over Ukraine. But if it did happen, it likely wouldn't be some massive strike.  It's not Russian style or Pooter style.  "Just the tip".  So a single tac nuke goes off to see what NATO does and to force NATO to put pressure on Ukraine to end the war with the Russians holding the Donbass and Crimea.  Pooter declares victory.  NATO declares they prevented nuclear war.  The US may or may not respond one of two ways.  They could respond with a tac nuke strike on a Russian airbase or logistical center within Russia, or they can simply decide to enter the war conventionally.

I forget which network I was listening to at the time(XM radio), but I think the talking head likely has the gist of it. The initial NATO response to likely identify where the (limited) WMD attack came from, and to destroy the operational capability of that unit and facility... And any unit that gets in the way of their doing so. Most likely by conventional means. There would also likely be NATO "peacekeepers" introduced into certain areas for specific tasks, but they'd otherwise seek to limit their engagement with Russia beyond that.

If it's a larger attack, or Russian forces go out of their way to defend to offending unit, things may widen from there because of that. But until the event happens, hard to predict as we don't know what the starting point is with respect to a "proportionate response." If we're talking "a few dozens/hundreds dead" cruise missile strikes are likely to be the extent of it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2022, 04:30:54 PM »
I forget which network I was listening to at the time(XM radio), but I think the talking head likely has the gist of it. The initial NATO response to likely identify where the (limited) WMD attack came from, and to destroy the operational capability of that unit and facility... And any unit that gets in the way of their doing so. Most likely by conventional means. There would also likely be NATO "peacekeepers" introduced into certain areas for specific tasks, but they'd otherwise seek to limit their engagement with Russia beyond that.

If it's a larger attack, or Russian forces go out of their way to defend to offending unit, things may widen from there because of that. But until the event happens, hard to predict as we don't know what the starting point is with respect to a "proportionate response." If we're talking "a few dozens/hundreds dead" cruise missile strikes are likely to be the extent of it.

Of course as I think a bit more on that idea, I'm amazed it was a General from the US Armed Forces suggesting that plan. As I remembered another little tidbit from back during the 1991 Gulf War.

US Operational doctrine at the time was that if they were to attack an enemy position known/believed to contain Chem/Bio weapons, the doctrine was to use a nuclear weapon to ensure that the chem/bio agents weren't accidentally released as a consequence of the strike. Something about some of those agents requiring a very high temperature to ensure they were destroyed. And the only thing they had that fit that bill at the time were nuclear bombs.

Only other option would be to send in ground troops to take control of the facility in question.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2022, 04:35:24 PM »

Most likely by conventional means. There would also likely be NATO "peacekeepers" introduced into certain areas for specific tasks, but they'd otherwise seek to limit their engagement with Russia beyond that.

If it's a larger attack, or Russian forces go out of their way to defend to offending unit, things may widen from there because of that. But until the event happens, hard to predict as we don't know what the starting point is with respect to a "proportionate response." If we're talking "a few dozens/hundreds dead" cruise missile strikes are likely to be the extent of it.

Eh.  I worry that a conventional response to a single tactical nuclear attack , which I believe would be the wisest choice because going nuclear is not necessary for victory by Ukraine, or necessary for NATO to achieve it's aims, would not be the response that Pooter needs in order to "escalate to deescalate". He wants to provoke a nuclear response on Russian soil to threaten strategic nuclear war to force NATO to pressure Ukraine to settle for losing Donbass and Crimea.  So if he doesn't get the response he wants with a single attack, he may just continue throwing them over until he gets what he wants.  This includes using tac nukes on any NATO peacekeeping forces that are sent in or possibly on NATO bases where conventional air attacks on Russia originated from.  Simply responding conventionally and allowing Pooter to just throw tac nukes into Ukraine will eventually give Pooter the chance to win in Ukraine, which is looking more and more unlikely with each passing day.

To turn the tide of the war in Pooter would need to hit multiple targets in Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.   Sumy.  Nizhyzn.  Chernihiv.  Mena.  Kulkykivka. Maybe Lviv.  Vasyl'kiv. Ivano Frankivs'k.  Myrhorod. Ozerne. Starokostiantyniv. Severodoetsk. Izium. Donesk.  Logistics depots like Bila Tserkva, Dnipro. 

Depending on what was hit, I don't see NATO just responding with "we'll take out that launcher".  If the launcher was mobile it's probably on the road high tailing it back to Moscow.  If it came from a plane you'd have to hit the entire air base it originated from.  Probably within Russia. 

While I personally believe that responding with a tactical nuclear weapon would be falling into Pooter's trap, I also see the catch-22 of not responding and Pooter feeling he can just continue to lob them over Ukraine until he can win.  The simplest answer is just for NATO to enter the war full bore conventionally, without responding with nukes.  But that just makes the NATO forces a new target for Russian tac nukes. 

It may be possible to go head to head with Russia in an air campaign and missile campaign, targeting their nuclear delivery capabilities, without using nukes of our own, but it would be very risky and we could lose.  All it takes is a few ballistic missiles getting through to NATO airbases and you're hurt.  Air bursts near AWACs and electronic sentry aircraft would quickly blind NATO and take away much of it's advantage. 

As much as I don't like it, I believe the best response would be to respond in kind with a tactical nuclear strike on a Russian air base or logistics depot.  It would give Pooter the escalation he wants, but it would end the nuclear exchange there.  Pooter would understand that NATO will go tit for tat with tac nukes, so he cannot win that way.  He can only lose worse than he already is and take some of NATO with him.  Pooter will threaten strategic nuclear attack.  He will send his subs out.  He will put his bombers on alert and have them circling like buzzards.  He'll fuel missiles or open silo doors or put all the mobile launchers on the road or whatever.  But I believe that it would be a bluff.  This could lead to the Armageddon scenario, which I still believe that Pooter doesn't want because I honestly don't believe that he's that crazy.  That he maintains some sense of self-preservation.  That somewhere, he wants glory for Russia and turning Russia into glass isn't glorious.  I believe that he understands that even opening the nuclear pandora's box very seriously increases his chance of getting lead poisoning.  He's already paranoid in some ways. 

This is my belief on the matter.  It's imperfect, but I've given my reasoning behind it.  I've heard doomsday scenarios and allegories but very little "this is the way it could actually happen" that make sense. 

It's very possible that Pooter has NATO's number, though, and that a tac nuke attack on Ukraine would indeed cause NATO and world opinion to turn away from further assisting Ukraine.  But it would probably cause a schism within NATO, and achieve the secondary aim of Pooter's War.  And as usual, it does actually depend on where the United States ends up on the matter, because Eastern Europe, as much as it would like to, just can't go it alone.  They need the NATO nuclear umbrella which is primarily an American nuclear umbrella, which they will be seriously in doubt of if  NATO caves to a tac nuke strike. 


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2022, 08:50:15 PM »
It's very possible that Pooter has NATO's number, though, and that a tac nuke attack on Ukraine would indeed cause NATO and world opinion to turn away from further assisting Ukraine.  But it would probably cause a schism within NATO, and achieve the secondary aim of Pooter's War.  And as usual, it does actually depend on where the United States ends up on the matter, because Eastern Europe, as much as it would like to, just can't go it alone.  They need the NATO nuclear umbrella which is primarily an American nuclear umbrella, which they will be seriously in doubt of if  NATO caves to a tac nuke strike.
The US could dump the portions of NATO that back away after a tac nuke strike in Ukraine. But with Sleepy Joe in charge, I doubt he'll be that inclined to do so. Although he could still end up doing so. It's been kind of funny to see his admin take up a position, then seeing Nancy Pelosi coming out with a contrary position, and the Biden admin shifting to conform to Nancy's positioning.

Still not a great look for leading things on the global stage. Congress is having to assume control of the ship of state and the President is following their lead rather than leading himself.

And the problem with that is Congress shouldn't be in the position to need to do that, it's why we did away with the Articles of Confederation and drafted the Constitution to replace it. Leadership by committee in wartime is a setup for failure.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2022, 09:16:25 PM »
The US could dump the portions of NATO that back away after a tac nuke strike in Ukraine. But with Sleepy Joe in charge, I doubt he'll be that inclined to do so. Although he could still end up doing so. It's been kind of funny to see his admin take up a position, then seeing Nancy Pelosi coming out with a contrary position, and the Biden admin shifting to conform to Nancy's positioning.

I don't know.  I havn't seen anywhere where Nancy Pelosi has been running foreign policy.  I imagine that she has shifted Biden admin takes on domestic policy, but I kinda get that since all that domestic policy and spending needs to get run through Congress and Nancy Pelosi runs Congress.  I actually kinda like it that way.  With Congress doing domestic stuff and the Presidency handling foreign stuff and domestic enforcement.  It also gives the Presidency a mediating aspect in domestic policy, which has been sorely missed, if it has ever existed at all.  So you'll have to give examples of Nancy Pelosi changing Biden admin foreign policy aims. 

As for the US basically dumping Germany and whomever else doesn't want to go along for a nuclear showdown in Eastern Europe, it would lend the necessary support to the other Eastern European countries, but I'm really unsure if Grandpa President would do that.  Not after all this crap about unilateralism.  I mean Bush and Obama led all kinds of coalitions and they get called warmongering unilateralists all the time.  Grandpa doesn't really have a great track record for leading from the front on foreign policy decision making.  Could the US even continue to function in Eastern Europe without Germany, France, Italy, and the UK?  That's most of your economic support right there. 

I mean, I think that would be the right move.  I just don't know if it would work out as well.  Telling Germany in January "hey we're going in" is a different prospect then doing it right after a tactical nuclear weapon has gone off in Ukraine and you're in Germany.  The level of fear would probably be much higher.  Maybe near panic.  The *censored* might hit the fan in the US as well.  Everybody been building up to "WORLD WAR THREEEEE (TM)" for so long that there may be another run on *censored* tickets at Wal-Mart. 

Or I could be wrong and the Germans and French surprise everybody and become apoplectic with rage at nuclear weapons being used by Russia.  Pooter sure was wrong at the response he would get.  Maybe they end up dragging Grandpa into nuclear response.  I find that harder to believe because I just can't see all NATO members being of one mind on such a big decision.  But stranger things have happened and foxholes make fast friends. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2022, 09:41:00 AM »
I don't know.  I havn't seen anywhere where Nancy Pelosi has been running foreign policy.  I imagine that she has shifted Biden admin takes on domestic policy, but I kinda get that since all that domestic policy and spending needs to get run through Congress and Nancy Pelosi runs Congress.  I actually kinda like it that way.  With Congress doing domestic stuff and the Presidency handling foreign stuff and domestic enforcement.  It also gives the Presidency a mediating aspect in domestic policy, which has been sorely missed, if it has ever existed at all.  So you'll have to give examples of Nancy Pelosi changing Biden admin foreign policy aims.

The Russian oil embargo in the US is one example. The Biden Admin says we're not doing it because of various reasons. Then the next day, Pelosi is holding a press conference, is asked about it and response "of course we should be banning it." A few days later, Joe Biden announces we're not going to be importing Russian Oil.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2022, 02:12:46 PM »
Well, if true it's still a step up from letting Fox news determine foreign policy.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2022, 02:41:36 PM »
The Russian oil embargo in the US is one example. The Biden Admin says we're not doing it because of various reasons. Then the next day, Pelosi is holding a press conference, is asked about it and response "of course we should be banning it." A few days later, Joe Biden announces we're not going to be importing Russian Oil.

Wellll.  That's not just Pelosi there.  That's all of Congress.  An yeh, every now and then Congress can get enough people to agree on something to make a foreign policy decision or two.  I don't always recommend it (despite some experience in some areas like the Senate, the majority of foreign policy experience coagulates in the executive branch, while Congress is often full of green yahoos) but sometimes it works out.  But it's still not like Nancy Pelosi is doing that on her own and running foreign policy.  Definitely not when there is bipartisan support for an idea.  She defiantly can't get just anything she wants though the Senate.  I'm going to have to call hyperbole, with a grain of truth. 

Though I imagine to the NSC for the Biden admin, they'd love to blame Pelosi themselves for interfering with their carefully crafted and thought out plans to keep gas prices low and not get Grandpa blamed for them. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2022, 08:17:31 PM »
A bunch of Republican at that same time were also demanding that we ban Russian oil (as part of a bid to relaunch the "drill everywhere, drill now" agenda). Why are we singling out Pelosi as being the master puppeteer? Because days later one of her speeches Biden did something? I'm not sure we can follow those breadcrumbs back home, Hansel.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Armageddon - what are your plans?
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2022, 10:38:03 PM »
A bunch of Republican at that same time were also demanding that we ban Russian oil (as part of a bid to relaunch the "drill everywhere, drill now" agenda). Why are we singling out Pelosi as being the master puppeteer? Because days later one of her speeches Biden did something? I'm not sure we can follow those breadcrumbs back home, Hansel.

You think? Obviously I was using short hand. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, while she may spend of a lot of her time engaged in partisan politics, she does have enough sense to realize when a position is untenable and going along with the Republicans is the only real choice.

Pelosi was simply the highest profile messenger the Biden admin had publicly saying their policy position had no traction in congress, and certainly not in the rest of the country.