War

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Lucky Luke said:
If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine would America then get even more involved and attack Russia directly with tactical nuclear weapons? Bit of an escalation. - Wouldn't that mean the Proxy war is over and its official? Not sure America would as it then means America becomes a legitimate target. Depends if that's what the US Gov want- get a nuclear war over and done with.
America has form for nuking cities so i would not dismiss it plus add in cities and civilians as a target since WW2.
Lots of ifs buts and maybes.
Click to expand...
So much no.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Food for thought.

Click to expand...
Same kind of parameters would suit Australian jets rather than the F35 Strike Fighter.
Last few minutes commentary was telling- "The war there is only heating up and the west is forced to supply more and more modern weapons there"
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine would America then get even more involved and attack Russia directly with tactical nuclear weapons? Bit of an escalation. - Wouldn't that mean the Proxy war is over and its official? Not sure America would as it then means America becomes a legitimate target. Depends if that's what the US Gov want- get a nuclear war over and done with.
America has form for nuking cities so i would not dismiss it plus add in cities and civilians as a target since WW2.
Lots of ifs buts and maybes.
Click to expand...
The USA promised to defend Ukraine when President Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, which removed 1,800 nukes from Ukraine after the fall of the USSR...I would expect President Joe Biden will fulfill our obligation..
1680839591747.png
en.wikipedia.org

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The drone units are becoming very effective and important to the Ukrainians and when the Russians hear they are moving into an area they react in fear! The strain of having those things overhead directing artillery, dropping grenades and bombs, then those FPV and military suicide drones hunting them down inside buildings and flying into bunkers and trenches must be awful.


07 Apr: Ukrainians Conduct a SUCCESSFUL COUNTERATTACK | War in Ukraine Explained
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
The USA promised to defend Ukraine when President Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, which removed nukes from Ukraine after the fall of the USSR...I would expect President Joe Biden will fulfill our obligation..
en.wikipedia.org

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Emperor Xi would be most displeased! He would shit a brick and Russia would likely lose its seat on the security council and even seat in the UN. It would be useless on the battlefield and might be interdicted there before use and his troops have no equipment for its use, there would be more dead Russians than Ukrainians. If he used one on a Ukrainian city, fuck knows what would happen, but whatever it was Vlad would not like it!

Russia is in such a weakened state now that you could drop the 101st airborne on the Kremlin and they could hold out with Vlad tied to a chair until the Abrams showed up the next fucking day from Poland FFS! Another airborne unit would have the airport and armor rolling through Moscow!
 
Last edited:
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
The USA promised to defend Ukraine when President Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, which removed 1,800 nukes from Ukraine after the fall of the USSR...I would expect President Joe Biden will fulfill our obligation..
View attachment 5279057
en.wikipedia.org

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
It didnt promise to defend Ukraine according to your link:

Analysis[edit]
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[2] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[46][47]

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][47] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[46] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine

Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[49] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[22]


Its rather wishy washy.
 
Last edited:
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
It didnt promise to defend Ukraine according to your link:

Analysis[edit]
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[2] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[46][47]

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][47] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[46] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine

Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[49] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[22]
Click to expand...
that depends on what your definition of "security assurances" is....
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
It didnt promise to defend Ukraine according to your link:

Analysis[edit]
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[2] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[46][47]

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][47] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[46] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine

Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[49] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[22]


Its rather wishy washy.
Click to expand...
Which is why America is not in Ukraine now and the Russians dead or long gone. If they used a nuke, that could change, nukes they insured against when the Ukrainians gave up 1600 of theirs to the Russians. It was a nuclear weapons assurance more than anything else, you give up nukes and we make sure no one uses nukes against you.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
that depends on what your definition of "security assurances" is....
Click to expand...
Not mine- your governments who decided to not use "Security guarantee." and call the document "not legally binding and a Political commitment".

Just pointing out that the memorandum doesn't mean that the US is legally bound, will or has to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them on Ukraine. Not saying they wont- it might be all part of the plan to do just that.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Which is why America is not in Ukraine now and the Russians dead or long gone. If they used a nuke, that could change, nukes they insured against when the Ukrainians gave up 1600 of theirs to the Russians. It was a nuclear weapons assurance more than anything else, you give up nukes and we make sure no one uses nukes against you.
Click to expand...
The nukes where no use to Ukraine. They were Russian nukes with Russian codes. I think America got them? Then gave them to Israel?
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
security
[ si-kyoor-i-tee ]SHOW IPA

noun, plural se·cu·ri·ties.

freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.
freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence.
something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.


assurance
[ uh-shoor-uhns, -shur- ]SHOW IPA

noun

a positive declaration intended to give confidence: He received assurances of support for the project.
promise or pledge; guaranty; surety: He gave his assurance that the job would be done.
full confidence; freedom from doubt; certainty:
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
security
[ si-kyoor-i-tee ]SHOW IPA

noun, plural se·cu·ri·ties.

freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.
freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence.
something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.


assurance
[ uh-shoor-uhns, -shur- ]SHOW IPA

noun

a positive declaration intended to give confidence: He received assurances of support for the project.
promise or pledge; guaranty; surety: He gave his assurance that the job would be done.
full confidence; freedom from doubt; certainty:
Click to expand...
yep- lovely words with no guarantee. Im just using the document you posted with the US governments intentions of.

The Memorandum means you could but don't have to- Cause its not a security guarantee. Your own Government says this.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
I'm gonna try this one on my mortgage company....
Click to expand...
Australia has a similar " Security document" with America with no guarantee.
The article mentions that America didnt want to use the word guarantee.
Contracts are rarely water tight but money lending's is normally a contract thats very difficult to get out of. Trump seems to just not bother paying his debts and that seems to have worked well for him.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
yep- lovely words with no guarantee. Im just using the document you posted with the US governments intentions of.

The Memorandum means you could but don't have to- Cause its not a security guarantee. Your own Government says this.
Click to expand...
Without a will to fight, it's just a scrap of paper, however, shit happens and instead of going for bites, Vlad went for the whole enchilada and that will to kick his ass, now exists, both in Europe and in America. A problem has been turned into an opportunity to eliminate Russia as a conventional military threat and Putin because he's an asshole who can't be reasoned with or trusted anyway. Russia will be fucked for a decade minimum, militarily, economically, socially and spiritually. They won't be a threat to their smaller neighbors and their imperialist ambitions are thwarted.

They might dissolve and there could be new countries on the pacific rim, former autonomous Russian republics. China wants land back (a lot) and Japan wants Islands back stolen by Stalin at the end of WW2, they have not forgotten. A deal with the new governments in the region could see a lot of aid in exchange for turf taken. This war will end up changing the map of Europe, central Asia and perhaps the Pacific rim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top