Fear, Anxiety and Doomscrolling

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Thanks guys for your replies and insight. I’ve been reading a lot lately (probably too much) about the different asymmetrical warfare possibilities and outcomes. These analyses never consider things such as “what might go wrong with the CCP and/or Russian plan?” Will the EMP attack be effective? Will all the missiles work? Will America respond the way they assume we will? Lots of unknowns, and communists have a long sordid history of over planning and overplaying their cards. It’s a scary time right now for sure regardless.
Well rest assured that any war between US/Russia/or China will quickly end in a nuclear holocaust. Not everyone will die but the country will end and so will the enemy.

That is the reasoning behind why nations have nuclear weapons. To make sure its over for good for both nations. Again rather die free than live red-(under occupation).
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Lastly PLEASE don't make believe that a real war between China and US won't go nuclear right away because it will just like any other nuclear nation potentially facing off.
We were speculating about invasion. Why would China nuke the US if they intended to invade? Except, of course, maybe a limited strike. Maybe an EMP attack.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Why would China nuke the US if they intended to invade?
That’s what Nyquist was hinting at. A limited strike aimed more at military and C&C since they need our land.

Lmao really? Because the US would nuke China in any scenario like that and in turn China would have no choice but to nuke back.

There is literally zero chance of anything happening OTHER than a all out nuclear exchange.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Power Poster
limited strike
Is everyone here on crack? It's all or nothing with nuclear nations. My god get out of this fantasy that the US could be invaded or taken over.

Doesnt matter how it starts or how China or Russia go about it. The US will launch its nukes and in turn China and Russia would do the same.

THE VERY LITERAL MILLISECOND any side starts to lose there goes the nukes.

Be realistic people come on. It's been a fact and same MO for decades. Nuclear nations cannot go to war without going totally nuclear.

Just how it works and always will until nuclear weapons are made irelvinent.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Power Poster
always will until nuclear weapons are made irelvinent.
We are so very far from making nuclear weapons irelvinent. Won't happen in our lifetime, can tell you that much.

Until nuclear weapons are made irelvinent there will be NO limited strikes, NO war, NO nothing physically between ANY nuclear nations AT LEAST NOT intentionally.-(There will always be a chance of accidentally stumbling into nuclear war)
 
Last edited:

ralfy

Active member
Possible? Sure? Likely? Nah.

Certainly not out of the blue, as in a Chinese first strike. China has too much to lose.

Now if the US and China go to war, certainly China can make the US' life miserable. The US has too many vulnerabilities.

But in a shooting war, China will lose as long as the US fights the war to win. Problem is, the US hasn't been very good at that recently.

Both countries are tied to each other economically, and many countries tied to both. If they go to war, then the global economy collapses. If even tactical nuclear warfare takes place involving other countries, like India vs. Pakistan, then it will be global economic collapse plus other predicaments.

That's why military powers have been engaged in proxy wars for over seventy years. The difference is that China, together with the rest of BRICS and over forty countries, have become stronger economically the past two decades, and the U.S., Japan, and various EU members weakening as they reach late capitalism.
 

ralfy

Active member
There is no point of thinking if China or Russia could invade us, or take us over, or anything in between because any conflict between nuclear nations end in that nuclear war.

After a nuclear war even alone with China or Russia it's over. There will be no government (at least one to govern), no structural military command, no nothing for a long time for either nation in a nuclear war.
In addition, there's no point for them to invade the U.S. because they've been winning economically. The problem is that the U.S. is weakening, as it has to continue borrowing and spending heavily to not only maintain its military but even its economy. But for that to happen, many countries have to remain dependent on the dollar, which means they shouldn't win economically.

Trump probably understood that, which is he was pushing for trade deals with China (to buy U.S. goods, which they were planning to do because they joined the WTO many years ago), peace deals starting with North Korea, and plans to wind down military expansionism while even insisting that other countries pay for any military help. But he also realized that he could never drain the swamp which still made up much of his admin, which is why during the waning weeks of his term he contemplated attacking Iran.

Now, the swamp, which has been in place for decades, is back. That means more proxy wars while using media continue warmongering. How else can increased military spending be justified?
 

ralfy

Active member
The whole entire reasoning behind nuclear weapons in the world today (& cold war) is a country would rather die free and destroy itself in the process of engaging in nuclear war than be taken over by the enemy.

It's called "mutually assured destruction" or MAD.
 

ralfy

Active member
Thanks guys for your replies and insight. I’ve been reading a lot lately (probably too much) about the different asymmetrical warfare possibilities and outcomes. These analyses never consider things such as “what might go wrong with the CCP and/or Russian plan?” Will the EMP attack be effective? Will all the missiles work? Will America respond the way they assume we will? Lots of unknowns, and communists have a long sordid history of over planning and overplaying their cards. It’s a scary time right now for sure regardless.
The catch is that the CCP stopped becoming Communist after the late 1980s, and Russia a bit later. After that, both became stronger economically, and are now seen as part of BRICS and over forty emerging markets. According to Wall Street banks, they will soon take over the global economy, especially the emerging markets with young populations.

The catch is limits to growth due to biosphere limitations coupled with the swamp in the U.S. wanting the old arrangement of having the same emerging markets dependent on the U.S. There are more details in my first post in this thread.
 

ralfy

Active member
Well rest assured that any war between US/Russia/or China will quickly end in a nuclear holocaust. Not everyone will die but the country will end and so will the enemy.

That is the reasoning behind why nations have nuclear weapons. To make sure its over for good for both nations. Again rather die free than live red-(under occupation).
But the U.S. has to justify continued (and increased) military spending to the gullible public, and the only way to ensure that is to continue warmongering. That includes arguing that the enemy will invade it, or is destabilizing it, or is committing genocide, etc. That's where CNN and BBC come in, why it was important for them and the elite to have members of the swamp back, like Biden.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
It's called "mutually assured destruction" or MAD.
I know but was breaking it down on a social level. Everyone knows M.A.D but not the mentality behind it and how it STILL applies today.

Sorry to burst imaginations here but its just straight forward as the sky is blue, its impossible for any nuclear nations to face off, wage war, or even limited strikes directly without going to total nuclear commitment where all parties lose.
 
Last edited:

ralfy

Active member
I know but was breaking it down on a social level. Everyone knows M.A.D but not the mentality behind it and how it STILL applies today.

Sorry to burst imaginations here but its just straight forward as the sky is blue, its impossible for any nuclear nations to face off, wage war, or even limited strikes directly without going to total nuclear commitment where all parties lose.
Given the other points I raised, it won't even be needed for global collapse to take place.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
It is dangerous and naive to propose that nuclear war or exchange cannot happen.
There are always unknown circumstances that can precipitate a quickly escalating situation where a nation might decide to use their nuclear weapons.
It’s dangerous to maintain this because it precludes that all actors will behave rationally according to MAD doctrine all the time.

MAD does minimize the chances of it happening immensely that is without question.
It does influence, logically, that no nation will purposely implement a nuclear strike as a premeditated action.
But it cannot guarantee that no nation or nations might be provoked in launching nuclear strike out of fear or retaliation.
It is of course a minimal risk and limited to a confusing chaotic set of circumstances in many ways impossible to predict.
But these scenarios cannot be guaranteed to not happen and the consequences would be world changing and tragic.
Never say never
 
Top