Washington renames Russian embassy street after slain opposition MP

[Shalcker]

Sorry, but on what planet do you reside that thinks that Russia is going to turn the US into ashes?

In response to being subjected to all out, brutal war? This world.

Deterrent only stays deterrent as long as it deters war; once war happens it will be used, no questions about it.

[Jastall]

Remember Bin Laden? They even broadcast it to Obama as it happened...

Extrajudicial "droning" of US citizens is a thing too.

Bin Laden literally led the most destructive terrorist attack in US history. If they had the right to kill anyone, it was that mass-murdering asshole.

Not to mention that if you equate the two (somehow), you're not denying that the Kremlin actually had the guy killed in the first place.

[Mormolyce]

Sorry, but on what planet do you reside that thinks that Russia is going to turn the US into ashes?

The answer is in the same sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

Tsarist "repressions" were milder then current US "repressions"

This would be funny if it weren't for the possibility that some poor assholes in Putin's Russia actually believe this.

Aside from the ones being paid to, anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

What's hilarious is that some of the clowns in Russian duma are seriously discussing the proverbial "symmetric answer" mentioned jokingly above. I guess when you are a clown, you don't understand that these things are discussed as mocking whoever is doing them (because everything about them is stupid), you think doing these things is cool and why you are in the duma.

So, one guy, for example, suggests naming some street before the US embassy "The American Dead-End" or somesuch. :-) (And of course he has wide support and several others jumped on the chance to say something before the cameras and of course they condemned the evil America while looking all hard and decisive. Hey, if folks in Washington rename a couple more streets, they might effectively stall all other activity in duma. Which could actually be good, given that normally that activity is about nodding to some new war or some new law designed to line up the pockets of some of those nodding.)

Seth Rich Boulevard maybe?

Shit, I shouldn't give them ideas.

[Shalcker]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Man that's adorable. Little Russia boy thinks his country could scratch America in a war.

Yeah, that's what nukes are for. Sorry, they exist for exactly this reason - to be used in case of major war, and thus stave it off from happening.

If war still happens though, they'll just become weapon, one among many.

Weapon against which US still has no proper defence; hell, they aren't even sure they could defend themselves from freaking North Korea.

[Deleted]

Why the fuck are people spending thousands of dollars on petty jabs at foreign politicians.

This is literally Tax payer money being wasted.

[Shalcker]

Man your propaganda news sources do a great job at sheltering you from the cold, harsh truth of the weakness of your country.

So do yours; it's common knowledge.

In any major conflict with those that can actually attack it America has a lot more to lose. That doesn't mean American opponents will not get ruined; only that America will lose more then them, on account that they have less stuff to be destroyed overall.

- - - Updated - - -

Why the fuck are people spending thousands of dollars on petty jabs at foreign politicians.

This is literally Tax payer money being wasted.

Actual expenditures seem to be in hundreds of dollars, not even thousands. Petty and cheap trolling.

[Orbitus]

So do yours; it's common knowledge.

In any major conflict with those that can actually attack it America has a lot more to lose. That doesn't mean American opponents will not get ruined; only that America will lose more then them, on account that they have less stuff to be destroyed overall.

- - - Updated - - -

Actual expenditures seem to be in hundreds of dollars, not even thousands. Petty and cheap trolling.

It's cute that you think your aging nuclear arsenal scares us.

[Shalcker]

It's cute that you think your aging nuclear arsenal scares us.

A monkey with grenade is not afraid of grenade either.

...you should also check when you last created new warhead/missile and when Russians and China did.

[Orbitus]

A monkey with grenade is not afraid of grenade either.

...you should also check when you last created new warhead/missile and when Russians and China did.

You think our nuclear arsenal creation isn't classified? Because I am sorry to say, you are just as delusional as your employer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You think our nuclear arsenal creation isn't classified? Because I am sorry to say, you are just as delusional as your employer.

I guess he's taking when the US "Officially" *wink wink nudge nudge* stopped producing nukes as what's going on. His employer should share better info with him.

- - - Updated - - -

A monkey with grenade is not afraid of grenade either.

...you should also check when you last created new warhead/missile and when Russians and China did.

Everyone is afraid to die even if they think they'd take out their enemy. It's why if dear leader snapped and launched nukes, regardless of whether he initiated it or not, he'd be cowering in a bunker while letting everyone else get wiped out. Pretty much the same as Trump would do.

[Deleted]

Actual expenditures seem to be in hundreds of dollars, not even thousands. Petty and cheap trolling.

The pay for the dozen or so legislative clerks or what have you who need to change dozens of documents seems far to much of a waste of resources just for some petty jab Putin will likely laugh at.

[Shalcker]

You think our nuclear arsenal creation isn't classified? Because I am sorry to say, you are just as delusional as your employer.

Check out what New START (which is still in effect) contains, then adjust your perception of reality accordingly.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess he's taking when the US "Officially" *wink wink nudge nudge* stopped producing nukes as what's going on. His employer should share better info with him.

Yeah, yeah, magically US developed, tested, produced, and deployed new nukes without funding them, without it being reported to Congress, and without anyone boasting about it... yeah, right.

Nope, you're just starting that process now. You got lots of catching up to do.

Everyone is afraid to die even if they think they'd take out their enemy.

Naturally. It feels like some Americans think they are invincible though.

It's why if dear leader snapped and launched nukes, regardless of whether he initiated it or not, he'd be cowering in a bunker while letting everyone else get wiped out. Pretty much the same as Trump would do.

The point is - nukes are appropriate response to some kinds of wars. Even if you will have to launch first.

Don't suggest that war against Russia is appropriate and no nukes will fly, simple.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yeah, yeah, magically US developed, tested, produced, and deployed new nukes without funding them, without it being reported to Congress, and without anyone boasting about it... yeah, right.

A huge portion of our budget is undisclosed discretionary spending. It was actually a pretty hot button issue for a short time between the end of Bush's presidency and the start of Obama's. All the conspiracy theorists were buzzing over what it was being spent on. There was a lot of "FEMA camp" talk about Obama, but it's pretty obvious what the US has been using it on, for the most part.

Naturally. It feels like some Americans think they are invincible though.

I agree, the dick waving can get pretty annoying. That doesn't mean Russian posters are innocent of it. If either super power honestly thought they could nuke the other and get away with it, they would have done so by now. Mutually assured destruction and basically making enemies of the entire world are kind of a huge deterrent from either side doing it.

The point is - nukes are appropriate response to some kinds of wars. Even if you will have to launch first.

Don't suggest that war against Russia is appropriate and no nukes will fly, simple.

You don't seem to understand what kind of a diplomatic nightmare launching nukes would cause. War does not automatically mean nukes either. People fight wars without nukes these days precisely because it's kind of hard to conceal the fact that you've used one from the rest of the world. Unlike chemical weapons, which are easier to conceal, and thus why the US used agent orange in Vietnam and kept it hidden for a long time, and Russia continues to use chemical weapons to this day. I wouldn't be surprised if the US does either, but I rely more on fact based reporting than self speculation about what's "probably" going on. Alternate facts are your specialty.

[Shalcker]

A huge portion of our budget is undisclosed discretionary spending. It was actually a pretty hot button issue for a short time between the end of Bush's presidency and the start of Obama's. All the conspiracy theorists were buzzing over what it was being spent on. There was a lot of "FEMA camp" talk about Obama, but it's pretty obvious what the US has been using it on, for the most part.

There really aren't many companies that can actually do it. And doing it without competition between them for better system would be corruption on highest level.

And the only way it would make sense to do in "total secrecy" from entire world is if you actually intend to use them for first strike in nearest future. And that would have to happen during Obama.

In literally every other case you would declare them as per existing nuclear treaties.

I agree, the dick waving can get pretty annoying. That doesn't mean Russian posters are innocent of it. If either super power honestly thought they could nuke the other and get away with it, they would have done so by now.

Not necessarily; as far as USSR is concerned they always maintained it as retaliatory.

You know, "Dead Hand" and all.

They had enough problems with what they already had.

Mutually assured destruction and basically making enemies of the entire world are kind of a huge deterrent from either side doing it.

Well, US nuked Japan and that didn't make them enemies of entire world... there are no examples of "enemies of entire world" really.

You don't seem to understand what kind of a diplomatic nightmare launching nukes would cause. War does not automatically mean nukes either. People fight wars without nukes these days precisely because it's kind of hard to conceal the fact that you've used one from the rest of the world. Unlike chemical weapons, which are easier to conceal, and thus why the US used agent orange in Vietnam and kept it hidden for a long time, and Russia continues to use chemical weapons to this day. I wouldn't be surprised if the US does either, but I rely more on fact based reporting than self speculation about what's "probably" going on. Alternate facts are your specialty.

"Serious" war between countries with nukes means nukes. Sorry. That's the underpinning of current world order. That is also why everyone was so concerned about Iran and North Korea.

Otherwise you can be looking at Russia actually entertaining thought of retaking entire Eastern Europe back because US isn't going to use nukes first (you know, current "Eastern NATO Partners" greatest fear), and US non-nuke response would take many months; so maybe they'll not respond at all.

...do you want that?

World where nukes are assumed to fly is actually much safer then the world where you might think "maybe they don't".

[Mormolyce]

Yeah, that's what nukes are for. Sorry, they exist for exactly this reason - to be used in case of major war, and thus stave it off from happening.

If war still happens though, they'll just become weapon, one among many.

Weapon against which US still has no proper defence; hell, they aren't even sure they could defend themselves from freaking North Korea.

You might cause some damage, but get real, you'd be utterly annihilated in the process.

That's why Putin is content to go with "women's weapons".

[rda]

You might cause some damage, but get real, you'd be utterly annihilated in the process.

This is not the case. Shalcker is right on that particular point, the consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Russia would be disastrous for both. It's not "some damage" on one side, but the other side destroyed, it's both sides destroyed. Not everyone would be killed, but a lot of people would (tens of millions on each side), most of the vital infrastructure would be destroyed and there would be several nasty lasting effects. For both the US and Russia. (In fact, any side could easily add half of the remaining world to their bar tab.) There are detailed projections on all of that. There is no way to protect from it either.

(Now, why the hell the thread allowed moving the discussion away from blatantly killing political enemies to a nuclear war, I don't know.)

[Crispin]

How on earth did this street name thread, turn into a nuke thread...

Oh wait nm, it's ofcourse the Russian who even managed to use the good old "but in america they hang negro's" whataboutism move ><

[Shalcker]

How on earth did this street name thread, turn into a nuke thread...

Oh wait nm, it's ofcourse the Russian who even managed to use the good old "but in america they hang negro's" whataboutism move ><

It started from

Shalcker here is one reason why I’m happily voting for whatever candidate wants to retaliate against Russia for election meddling with all out, brutal war. I’ll vote for a candidate that promises to glass Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

You might cause some damage, but get real, you'd be utterly annihilated in the process.

That's why Putin is content to go with "women's weapons".

Yes, that is why anyone who says "i'll vote to anyone who will promise to glass Russia" is an idiot.

[Machismo]

At the end of the day, Shalcker supports a murderous tyrant as his leader. He will go to great lengths to defend him, pushing whataboutisms, deflecting, projecting... and just about anything else.

[Shalcker]

At the end of the day, Shalcker supports a murderous tyrant as his leader. He will go to great lengths to defend him, pushing whataboutisms, deflecting, projecting... and just about anything else.

In the end, you look like propagandist yourself. Hammering your point relentlessly while not adding anything new.

And going to exactly same whataboutisms when your side is called hypocritical.

Didn't see you condemning suggestions that Russia should be glassed either.