• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

US, France, U.K, Give Ukraine Permission to Use Their Long Range Weapons to Strike Deep Within Russia

Spyglass said:
BREAKING: US sends equipment to Ukraine that is needed in case of nuclear war!November 20th aid package includes: “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment”-> Why now?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859279306729341012
Click to expand...
There have been reports of chemical use in the Ukraine theatre. I don't know if "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment" is just a catch-all for the entire package or if those individual items have been sent for specific purposes. (Meaning if you send Chemical, you also send Nuclear, or if a nuclear package was sent because of a perceived nuclear threat.)
 
Spyglass said:
What information here is fake? It’s a tweet, not my information. I am relaying it for the team to look at and consider. Go away.
Click to expand...
Have a look in the report section, or at least make a simple search instead of flooding the thread with shit lol.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
There have been reports of chemical use in the Ukraine theatre. I don't know if "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment" is just a catch-all for the entire package or if those individual items have been sent for specific purposes. (Meaning if you send Chemical, you also send Nuclear, or if a nuclear package was sent because of a perceived nuclear threat.)
Click to expand...
This kind of equipment falls in the broad export category of "CBRN defense gear". (where CBRN is just the acronym of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear"
Even if you send a gas mask, it will still qualify as that.
 
Spyglass said:
BREAKING: US sends equipment to Ukraine that is needed in case of nuclear war!November 20th aid package includes: “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment”-> Why now?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859279306729341012
Click to expand...
That stuff has been sent way before ATACSMS were accepted too, so it can't be used as some kind of argument that nuclear war is imminent.
 
Let's return our focus back on long range missile strikes into Russia from western weapons systems based in Ukraine to avoid thread lockdown.....
 
@Spyglass Keep believing to the Russia telegram trolls then.
After 1000 days.
And keep contributing in making threads 300 posts longer, forcing people to explain you things that you could have easily checked before.
 
Spyglass said:
Launch it from deep in the taiga… might not be that impractical. There’s tons of information floating around right now. Russia is going to respond to these long range hits. It’s just how and when.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Russia will respond but there’s no point in using an ICBM that has an accepted deviation from target of 150M. If Russia starts using ICBMs then that’s a pretty good indication about their supplies of short and medium range ballistic missiles. It’s not some kind of strategic flex for them to use them to respond to long range missile strikes as the intended effect is the same it just makes everyone think they’re dumb and running low on missiles so they had no choice. As for testing it in combat that makes no logical sense either because apart from a nuclear strike there no point in using it in combat because that’s why they build the Iskander system.
 
Snowfall said:
I’m sure Russia will respond but there’s no point in using an ICBM that has an accepted deviation from target of 150M. If Russia starts using ICBMs then that’s a pretty good indication about their supplies of short and medium range ballistic missiles. It’s not some kind of strategic flex for them to use them to respond to long range missile strikes as the intended effect is the same it just makes everyone think they’re dumb and running low on missiles so they had no choice. As for testing it in combat that makes no logical sense either because apart from a nuclear strike there no point in using it in combat because that’s why they build the Iskander system.
Click to expand...
You're just wasting your time...he won't even accept govt. officials as information, if it doesn't proof his points, or feeds his own fears.
 
Snowfall said:
I’m sure Russia will respond but there’s no point in using an ICBM that has an accepted deviation from target of 150M. If Russia starts using ICBMs then that’s a pretty good indication about their supplies of short and medium range ballistic missiles. It’s not some kind of strategic flex for them to use them to respond to long range missile strikes as the intended effect is the same it just makes everyone think they’re dumb and running low on missiles so they had no choice. As for testing it in combat that makes no logical sense either because apart from a nuclear strike there no point in using it in combat because that’s why they build the Iskander system.
Click to expand...
One missile makes a statement. My argument that this could happen is solely based on that. If I were Russia, I would do the least logical thing in response to another red line being crossed. If something doesn’t happen in the next 48 hours, I’ll admit I was wrong, but we just crossed a new threshold.
 
Spyglass said:
One missile makes a statement. My argument that this could happen is solely based on that. If I were Russia, I would do the least logical thing in response to another red line being crossed. If something doesn’t happen in the next 48 hours, I’ll admit I was wrong, but we just crossed a new threshold.
Click to expand...
The issue is this, is it possible at some point a redline might be crossed that triggers Russia to retaliate with a nuclear strike? Sure absolutely it is a possibility. It would not be a practical or productive responce by Russia. But the constraints and fears the Russian leadership has are not what western leaders normally calculate for. At least one would hope.
Remaining in power vs defending their nation and peoples.

The Russian leadership for the last 30 years has been hostile to NATO because it stipulated Russians admittance to NATO as just another member. They rejected any form of diluted control for Russia.
Right or Wrong.

Will they escalate now? I don’t think so. There is no solid intel they are planning to immediately.

Might they? As I mentioned they might. As I pointed out there calculus for escalation is not completely the same as the west. And I do believe this divergent calculus they use is gaining traction in Russia.
But it is also fair to say almost all of what we’re seeing currently is a disinformation campaign by Russia to sow division.
At some point it might stop being this alone. Unfortunately we likely won’t know when it does. Or maybe we will, who knows.

I personally support direct NATO intervention at this point. While missile launches into Russia targeting supplies might have some effect they are not going to dissuade Putin. They’re just a bandaid to slow the bleed.
NATO troops in contact solely inside Ukraine driving Russians back or fortifying lines are the only thing to stop Russia. Russian leaders are willing to let Russia bleed almost indefinitely. So they will never stop the conventional fight.

So while I don’t take Russias blustering seriously I also don’t take NATO’s bluster and trickle feed approach seriously either

Nothings going to happen in near future. But it is also fair to say the longer this drags on the greater the risk of serious escalation.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
There have been reports of chemical use in the Ukraine theatre. I don't know if "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment" is just a catch-all for the entire package or if those individual items have been sent for specific purposes. (Meaning if you send Chemical, you also send Nuclear, or if a nuclear package was sent because of a perceived nuclear threat.)
Click to expand...
Most people put tear gas and other gas on the same level as nerve agents and weaponized virology. Never made much sense to me why non lethal gas is considered as bad as lethal chemical agents. I'd rather get teargassed than get split in two by an FPV🤣
 
OReid said:
The issue is this, is it possible at some point a redline might be crossed that triggers Russia to retaliate with a nuclear strike? Sure absolutely it is a possibility. It would not be a practical or productive responce by Russia. But the constraints and fears the Russian leadership has are not what western leaders normally calculate for. At least one would hope.
Remaining in power vs defending their nation and peoples.

The Russian leadership for the last 30 years has been hostile to NATO because it stipulated Russians admittance to NATO as just another member. They rejected any form of diluted control for Russia.
Right or Wrong.

Will they escalate now? I don’t think so. There is no solid intel they are planning to immediately.

Might they? As I mentioned they might. As I pointed out there calculus for escalation is not completely the same as the west. And I do believe this divergent calculus they use is gaining traction in Russia.
But it is also fair to say almost all of what we’re seeing currently is a disinformation campaign by Russia to sow division.
At some point it might stop being this alone. Unfortunately we likely won’t know when it does. Or maybe we will, who knows.

I personally support direct NATO intervention at this point. While missile launches into Russia targeting supplies might have some effect they are not going to dissuade Putin. They’re just a bandaid to slow the bleed.
NATO troops in contact solely inside Ukraine driving Russians back or fortifying lines are the only thing to stop Russia. Russian leaders are willing to let Russia bleed almost indefinitely. So they will never stop the conventional fight.

So while I don’t take Russias blustering seriously I also don’t take NATO’s bluster and trickle feed approach seriously either

Nothings going to happen in near future. But it is also fair to say the longer this drags on the greater the risk of serious escalation.
Click to expand...
All of this sounds great, but what happens when NK troops start getting killed? The NK’s were a brilliant move by Putin tactically. Another angle to consider is a few months back Putin gave NK the missile technology to hit DC from the Korean Peninsula. Putin then asked for NK troops on the ground in Ukraine.

The West is now bombing deep inside Russia with top tier weaponry, and the current chatter is that NK troops were killed. It’s possible that Putin is counting on NK firing their new long range precision missile into CONUS. The USA attacks NK instead of Russia, and WW3 begins.

North Korea are the useful idiots on the battlefield now. I think this is a viable strategy unfortunately.
 
Spyglass said:
All of this sounds great, but what happens when NK troops start getting killed? The NK’s were a brilliant move by Putin tactically. Another angle to consider is a few months back Putin gave NK the missile technology to hit DC from the Korean Peninsula. Putin then asked for NK troops on the ground in Ukraine.

The West is now bombing deep inside Russia with top tier weaponry, and the current chatter is that NK troops were killed. It’s possible that Putin is counting on NK firing their new long range precision missile into CONUS. The USA attacks NK instead of Russia, and WW3 begins.

North Korea are the useful idiots on the battlefield now. I think this is a viable strategy unfortunately.
Click to expand...
"North korean long range precision missile" is not something I would put too much stock in... their track record of successful missile launches are abysmal.
 
Peter Griffin said:
"North korean long range precision missile" is not something I would put too much stock in... their track record of successful missile launches are abysmal.
Click to expand...
When was the last launch? Quite a while ago. Lots of time to make improvements, or receive advanced tech. “Sure we will send our troops to fight for Russia, but we want missiles to defend against the west.” You’d have to be a fool to think that deal didn’t happen, man.
 
Spyglass said:
When was the last launch? Quite a while ago. Lots of time to make improvements, or receive advanced tech. “Sure we will send our troops to fight for Russia, but we want missiles to defend against the west.” You’d have to be a fool to think that deal didn’t happen, man.
Click to expand...
This was written on October 31st -

“North Korea's possible participation in the Ukraine war would mark a serious escalation. South Korea, the U.S. and their partners also worry about what North Korea could get from Russia in return for joining Russia's war against Ukraine. Aside from his soldiers' wages, experts say Kim Jong Un likely hopes to get high-tech Russian technology that can perfect his nuclear-capable missiles and build a reliable space-based surveillance system. Kim could also want Russian fighter jets and help to modernize North Korea's conventional weapons.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom