GerogeI:


No you dumbknocklehead., the fact that you can deliver hundreds of nuclear war heads using cheap ballistic missiles and over a short distance means you can deliver a slow death that will last for centuries to a country just within 30mins. And there is not much they can do themselves after you have delivered it. Only there friends can do something, and friends change with seasons.


Your whole essence seems to be about who you support in this war.
Mine is to educate you a bit on international politics as I do not know who will be reading this post. I do not want an ignorant person driving my family to war tomorrow because he thinks NATO article 5 is sacrosanct.

I have just explained to you why both US and Russia do not want anybody with more than average military capability close to their boarders, your stupid response is NATO article 5.

In case it has not gotten to your thick skull, NATO is an Association, all the parties in it are sovereigns, they can break any treaty with or without consequences, what matters most is their interest. Today Germany, Hungary and Austria are paying for Russian gas in Rubbles against EU decision, yet heaven has not fallen. Even EU officials have provided a loop hole in their own sanctions. Use your brain.

Once any country is down, whether on Russian's party or US party the others action will be based on whether they face any further threat.
Further, mind you, if you remove Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea can not face 3000 nuclear war heads from US.
Similarly minus US, all of EU, Australia and Canada cannot survive some 4000 nuclear war heads from Russia, especially if delivered by hypersonic missiles. So the raw truth is that between Russia and US, whoever destroys the other will rule the world without further opposition. This is the real issue at stack not Zelenskys miscalculation.

Going religious,
Prophecies in revelations already says Russia will be a party to the last war on earth (the Armageddon) but does not mention US, so the US needs to thread very carefully. Americans know this that's why they traditionally fear the Russians coming. However, same bible prophecies does not say US will be destroyed by Gog (Russia), but by a coalition of countries formed by the AntiChrist, who we all do not know yet.

Collective defence - Article 5

The principle of collective defense is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.

The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

GerogeI:



Once any country is down, whether on Russian's party or US party the others action will be based on whether they face any further threat.
Further, mind you, if you remove Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea can not face 3000 nuclear war heads from US.
Similarly minus US, all of EU, Australia and Canada cannot survive some 4000 nuclear war heads from Russia, especially if delivered by hypersonic missiles. So the raw truth is that between Russia and US, whoever destroys the other will rule the world without further opposition. This is the real issue at stack not Zelenskys miscalculation.

plaindealer:
[s][/s]






Your irrelevant opinion remains irrelevant, you are not NATO and you and your Kremlin master don't speak for NATO.

If den born Potin well, let him fire one single bullet inside Poland or even small LATVIA next door and see how fast NATO go storm Russia with devastating annihilation.

When we debate facts, you people always show face with your meaningless opinion with zero sense of reality.

plaindealer:



Typical PouTinian, always bragging with meaningless rubbish? Always boasting with useless numbers when in fact you don't even need half of that to destroy the world.

US Navy Six Fleet with Nuclear ships, Nuclear subs in the Black Sea next to Russia and Meditaranian get enough Nukes to evaporate Russia, they don't even have to fire anything from the US.

GerogeI:

That's a stupid conjecture rising from ignorance. First make distinction between nuclear powered and nuclear weaponized ships. A nuclear weaponized ship will not carry more than 2 to 5 nuclear war heads. That's will hardly dent a country with large mass like Russia or US.

GerogeI:

That's a stupid conjecture rising from ignorance. First make distinction between nuclear powered and nuclear weaponized ships. A nuclear weaponized ship will not carry more than 2 to 5 nuclear war heads. That's will hardly dent a country with large mass like Russia or US.

I think you are just a kid, more concerned with sounding right than the true realities of war.

plaindealer:




To start with, Nuclear targets are populated areas, major states, towns and cities, not open deserts to blow up every inch of any country.

The topic is MAD so if you are going to spew endless essays and irrelevant rants, why not just convince us that MAD won't happen in case of any Nuke strike by Russia.

How hard is the topic to digest?

GerogeI:


Nuclear targets can be population centers and can also be deserts. Depends in the goal or strategy. The dangers of nuclear bombs is not the immediate explosion, but the millions of fragments of fissile material it will scatter over about 30km radius for the average bomb. So it can also be use to confine a population to a restricted area for the next 100 years.

MAD is nuclear weapons, and Nuclear weapons is MAD. Like you said, its a theory, howbeit it has not been tested. Hypersonic missiles is just one way it can all go wack. Am sure both US and Russia have been thinking of other ways.

For example the research in atomic collisions (CERN) is actually an effort into the possibility of using antimatter to to annihilate nuclear warheads without consequences. How much that has progressed is unknown, but theoretically possible.

plaindealer:




lol @ PoUtonian making silly and irrelevant distinctions between Nuclear ships and subs and Nuclear weapons?

So, I really have to spoon feed this slowTad that Nuclear ships and subs carry Nukes?

Do you not know that all the US Navy fleets from 1st to six all carry Nukes?

PoUTIN always recruits the slowest supporters I swear..

GerogeI:

Stop showing your ignorance and childishness.
Even an idiot knows not all US Navy or Russian ships or subs carry nuclear weapons.

Back to basics, you still need to learn the difference between nuclear powered vessels and nuclear weapon vessels. Not all nuclear powered vessels carry nuclear weapons.

GerogeI:

Stop showing your ignorance and childishness.
Even an idiot knows not all US Navy or Russian ships or subs carry nuclear weapons.

Back to basics, you still need to learn the difference between nuclear powered vessels and nuclear weapon vessels. Not all nuclear powered vessels carry nuclear weapons.

Mooh247:



The guy is still a kid and thinks war is call of duty on PlayStation, I bet he is stuck in Nigeria all his life and his perception of the west is only through Holywood movies.. He is quite irredeemable


.

plaindealer:



Look at this one hiding under another joker after getting disgraced out of the thread.

I'm kuku ready for you again..shey you neva taya.. Oya..

plaindealer:



Here we go again with the hypersonic argument.

It doesn't matter what you fired, they have sensors, sats, and monitoring apparatus to detect your actions from preparation to actual strike regardless of what you fired including hypersonic so the second your hypersonic jets into the air, they are sending yours back to you so of what relevance is your hypersonic argument?

Orr the fact that you fired hypersonic whatever means you won't get Nuked in return?

How hard is it for you people to gel with obvious reality or to even make small sense?

Mooh247:


Whose got time for a little boy with little data to constituite nuisance?! Definitely not me... Got far more productive threads to enjoy from properly raised civilised people on Nairaland

I barely gave the guy I qouted some hint on the stupidity to expect on this thread

GerogeI:


You know when you do not know how things work, you tend to mystify it. The sensors you are talking about are cameras on satellites, same kind used for shooting Google earth pictures and their infra red sand Lidar versions. Even North Korea routinely fool's all those cameras.

As for hypersonic missiles, am guessing you are not science inclined, so its hard for you to understand the implication. So lets make it simple, you cannot intercept them, the person who has them can more easily intercept your conventional missiles.

GerogeI:


As for hypersonic missiles, am guessing you are not science inclined, so its hard for you to understand the implication. So lets make it simple, you cannot intercept them, the person who has them can more easily intercept your conventional missiles.

plaindealer:



lmao @ this dude. Always gyrating from one foolery to the next?

Where was it even asserted that all ships carry nukes?

Dude, go and sit down if you have nothing sane and intelligent to talk about and stop arguing with yourself..

Typical PouTonian..

GerogeI:


Oh, I see your irrelevant use of Fleet. Has no consequence. US cannot destroy Russia from fleets, their missiles can be intercepted. They need to use intercontinental ballistic missiles, especially now that Russia can fire hypersonic interceptors.

And futher, no one ever made claims that Russia cannot sustain damage from retaliatory nuclear attacks. The point really is that Russias new capabilities make it more able to intercept or destroy such attacks, so the mutually assured destruction is no longer certain. The world is officially back in the arms race, Russia is on top for now.

plaindealer:



This has nothing to do with hypersonic or how good or difficult it is to defend against, let's just even agree that you hit your target in the US and Western Europe, does it mean the US or NATO won't send their own Nukes your way?

Just answer Yes or No.

GerogeI:


And futher, no one ever made claims that Russia cannot sustain damage from retaliatory nuclear attacks.

What the mutually assured destruction theory MAD is?

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

plaindealer:



Typical PoUtistan ignorant and unintelligent mumu. You know the meaning of MAD, but you still ignorantly utter rubbish about hypersonic as if hypersonic missiles can not be detected and quickly be responded to in kind with your own Nukes back to the sender.

There are tons of NATO subs, satellites and monitoring apparatus to even detect ahead of time before Poutin the lunatic touches is Nuke button.

Btw, you ignorantly think the West can not send tons of Nukles back to PoUtin because he fires his hypersonic rubbish? Obviously, you do not know the meaning of MAD so go and sit down.

POutin only recruits mumu and illiterate supporters I swear..

GerogeI:

Lol, you are thick, really thick skulled.

Let me try to be slow and gentle.
ICBM can easily achieve 7km/s, but they need to be launched into space, which means they are easily detected. All the parties have this capability.

But conventional air breathing missiles that you fire from vehicles or boats or ships or subs do not have that kind of speed. Except Russia now has the technology. Meaning, that the US can respond, but not only can Russia intercept the conventional missiles, they can also use the hypersonic missiles to intercept or deflect an incoming ICB missile since they have similar speed range.

So mutually assured destruction might not be totally mutual after all.

What the mutually assured destruction theory MAD is?

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

redcliff:


your father and your mother are moumou..

plaindealer:



When people with low intellect and meager vocabulary lack sensible and intelligent things to say, they enter inside gutter and start abusing their parents.


Sucks to be you.

plaindealer:






Hence the topic, MAD.

So, if you are not making claims that Russia cannot sustain damage from retaliatory nuclear attacks, then why are you bothering me with your meaningless post.

MAD is the Keyword, it's either you agree or disagree,, but you need to stop trolling or straddling as if you are clueless and confused.

plaindealer:
[s][/s]


I'm not interested in your speed of ICBM rubbish and distractions, the topic is MAD.




Do you agree or disagree?

You are not interested in the key factors that influence your so called MAD, that's why you are unable to comprehend what it is.