14 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Ah, the classic mix of condecension and overconfidence. Schrödinger’s cat was a thought experiment to highlight the absurdity of certain quantum interpretations—not to flat-out disprove them. As for Russia, while its economy has serious challenges, your sweeping generalizations ignore the complexities of wartime economics, global energy markets, and the resilience of state-controlled industries. Europe may be scrambling, but its response has been fragmented and sluggish. And propaganda? If questioning oversimplified narratives counts as that, then maybe critical thinking itself is ‘propaganda’ to you.

 

And it's economy is not doomed as you put it and ploughing on as 'one last push' just means countless thousands die on both sides it's easy for those in repose and comfort to cheers it on. Maybe RUSI has been infiltrated by Putin shills , but I doubt it.

 

"Designed to ensure that the Kremlin can pursue a sovereign foreign policy against the interests of the collective West, Russia's economic system is doing its job"

 

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russias-wartime-economy-isnt-weak-it-looks

It's good to see some common sense on here.

 

I especially liked the bit "Schrödinger’s cat was a thought experiment to highlight the absurdity of certain quantum interpretations—not to flat-out disprove them." Even a simple wikipedia search say that. I recently had cause to research that very subject.

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To the poster with the sad emoji- you know who you are- you're going to be a lot sadder in the near future as you see your dreams of Zelensky driving a tank through the Kremlin gates vanish like the dream you had last night.

Note to self: Sad emojis bug this poster. Good to know.

17 hours ago, Hellfire said:

Does Kasparov, or yourself, understand what using nukes means- seems not. There is no possibility of a first strike denying Russia a nuclear retaliation and hey presto we all die in nuclear winter.

 

Does his chatter about a spine mean that the Euros need to put their military into Ukraine- cue WW3.

18 hours ago, frank83628 said:

You supporting the war Hawks now then

Bolton is an idiot warmonger IMO and Trump did the right thing is sacking him.

On 2/14/2025 at 4:34 AM, Yagoda said:

But. But. He has the secret weapon. An innumerable supply of cannon fodder, a terrorized population and the asiatic brutality which is inherent in the barbaric soul of Russians. He'll keep going to the last man. When you take into account the fratricidal nature of this war caused by Western stupidity, it serves no ones interest to continue.

Given what you just wrote, and given that anyone with a clue knew that 3 years ago, it was in no one's interest to start.

This isn't the like the Iraq wars, nice desert to speed tanks over and a massive air advantage- it's a war fought in a bog for part of the year with trenches and WW1 style attrition. WW1 only ended when the US sent more cannon fodder, but in this situation that is as likely as Trump resigning.

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

What makes you think that anyone would stalk you.  If you honestly believe you are being stalked then report your concerns to the Mods! 

The only reason I reply to your idiotic one sided Trumpeting posts is because they are just that, one sided and pointless with the same words endlessly repeated!

Hi Scotty, yap yap yap. Why would I call the Modes to spank you with a newspaper? You are so cute the way you bark and yap and jump around all excited.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This isn't the like the Iraq wars, nice desert to speed tanks over and a massive air advantage-

We know now that Russia is not capable of that.

 

Fighting a war in that fashion requires flexibility and freedom of thought.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Hi Scotty, yap yap yap. Why would I call the Modes to spank you with a newspaper? You are so cute the way you bark and yap and jump around all excited.

Yet another idiotic and pointless post by you!

Please let me know, in advance preferably, if you ever intend to post something constructive and relevant to the OP under discussion! 

9 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Yet another idiotic and pointless post by you!

Please let me know, in advance preferably, if you ever intend to post something constructive and relevant to the OP under discussion! 

Yap yap yap, didnt even take you 10 minutes to continue your stalking

On 2/14/2025 at 5:14 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

It the Schrodinger's Russia paradox on one hand they are bankrupt, out of tanks,ammo and men and on the verge of collapse relying on donkeys and shovels and on the other hand powerful enough to take on and invade Europe. Pick a side folks which is it ?

Perhaps like the cat being both dead and alive at the same time, Russia can be virtually destroyed militarily and still capable of taking over Europe against a nuclear armed NATO.

Even Albert would be at a loss to understand the warmongers characterization of Russia.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:11 AM, AlexRich said:

We are watching Ukraine and US allies being sold down the river in real time by Putin’s obedient poodle Donald Trump. 

If they are being sold down the river, it's entirely self inflicted. Only fools do not learn from history.

I remember well the alacrity with which they joined in, and spent all the money on bombs and missiles in Ukraine instead on the people that provided the tax.

 

Whether Trump is Putin's poodle or not it's time for this  embarrassment to western society being consigned to history under the topic of "stupid wars that didn't have to happen".

On 2/14/2025 at 1:31 PM, Hellfire said:

 

Kasparov lives in New York City, although he has Croatian citizenship. Why doesn't he go live in Europe if he doesn't "need the US at all?"

On 2/14/2025 at 11:49 AM, Hellfire said:

Invade Europe? There is not such country as Europe. Invade Estonia, Lithuania or even Poland - no problem. Then it will turn out those are too very corrupted and bad countries not worth defending. And they stupidly provoked the mighty Tsar from Moscow! Previous agreements and memorandums? Who cares!

No doubt another "low iq" person...

On 2/13/2025 at 7:31 PM, Hellfire said:

You can keep repeating this mantra: “never ever”. Betray Ukraine, show Putin your weakness, show him you are ready to betray your partner any time, show him that you are afraid to confront him, that you piss yourself every time he pronounces the word “nuclear” - this is all that is needed for him not to give a damn about Nato or whatever name you give this organization consisting of cowards. Just read the history book, read about Hitler and Czechoslovakia before you call me lunatic.

At the risk of being called "low IQ", I agree with you.

On 2/15/2025 at 7:11 AM, John Drake said:

 

Kasparov lives in New York City, although he has Croatian citizenship. Why doesn't he go live in Europe if he doesn't "need the US at all?"

 

Kasparov is unaware that many British nukes have an effective veto controlled by the Pentagon and US government. 

26 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Kasparov is unaware that many British nukes have an effective veto controlled by the Pentagon and US government. 

B.S.!

The US does not have control over UK manufactured warheads!

 

Deterrence as part of the UK’s defence policy - House of Lords Library

49 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

B.S.!

The US does not have control over UK manufactured warheads!

 

Deterrence as part of the UK’s defence policy - House of Lords Library

 

Hilarious. You really fell for that lie, eh? The British government cannot launch American nuclear weapons without the permission of the USA. 

 

Under no circumstances with the UK government launch US missiles on a first strike against any enemy state without the express permission of said US government. 

 

You being a world expert in everything will also be aware that the home base for the British nuclear fleet ( Faslane ) is actually in Georgia, USA. 

 

All logistical and technical support is at the mercy of the US government under the 1970 Polaris Agreement. ( lease ). 

 

We don't even own the effin things.  

I'm genuinely shocked and often entertained at the level of stupidity some posters on this forum display. 

 

I lay short odds that 99% of you didn't know we lease our nukes. There was a major political row a few years when the bill for the upgrade was presented. 

 

I suggest some of your study Denis Healy and Harold Wilson's attitude in this matter - they knew they couldn't sell a deal to the British public where they had to admit we were paying but had to ask permission to use the weapons. As Wilson famously said "you don't kick your creditor in the balls." 

 

In that matter he was referring to the Vietnam War, but he knew the servile relationship we had to the USA after the war. Anyone who watched Tony Blair's world tour of obsequiousness on the lead up to the Iraq War knows that.  

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68357294#:~:text=It cost £12.52bn,renew the Trident submarine fleet.

1 hour ago, theblether said:

 

Hilarious. You really fell for that lie, eh? The British government cannot launch American nuclear weapons without the permission of the USA. 

 

Under no circumstances with the UK government launch US missiles on a first strike against any enemy state without the express permission of said US government. 

 

You being a world expert in everything will also be aware that the home base for the British nuclear fleet ( Faslane ) is actually in Georgia, USA. 

 

All logistical and technical support is at the mercy of the US government under the 1970 Polaris Agreement. ( lease ). 

 

We don't even own the effin things.  

B.S.!

1 hour ago, theblether said:

You being a world expert in everything will also be aware that the home base for the British nuclear fleet ( Faslane ) is actually in Georgia, USA. 

What a load of codswallop,  The SSBN's are based at Faslane  and the warheads at RNAD Coulport, both in Scotland.

The Trident missiles are rotated between the US/UK and maintained in the US but the Warheads are built, stored and maintained in the UK!

 

"One of the most common myths around the system is that the United States has control over the UK’s Trident missile system, that is not the case.

It’s often said that the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system is not ‘independent’ or that the UK doesn’t have the ability to use the system without the US agreeing to it, in reality the UK does retain full operational control over the system.

One common argument is that the US can simply ‘turn off’ the GPS system and therefore can stop the UK using Trident, this is also a myth, Trident isn’t guided by satellite."

 

No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

 

 

20 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a load of codswallop,  The SSBN's are based at Faslane  and the warheads at RNAD Coulport, both in Scotland.

The Trident missiles are rotated between the US/UK and maintained in the US but the Warheads are built, stored and maintained in the UK!

 

"One of the most common myths around the system is that the United States has control over the UK’s Trident missile system, that is not the case.

It’s often said that the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system is not ‘independent’ or that the UK doesn’t have the ability to use the system without the US agreeing to it, in reality the UK does retain full operational control over the system.

One common argument is that the US can simply ‘turn off’ the GPS system and therefore can stop the UK using Trident, this is also a myth, Trident isn’t guided by satellite."

 

No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

 

 

 

You'll believe anything, gullible be thy middle name. By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? 

 

Is this another example of you gibbering a lot of drivel? If you seriously believe that the UK retains independent first strike status on our leased Trident's there's something wrong with your head. 

 

And as was clearly pointed out when the deal was signed, "we've just signed up for a £100 billion Trident commitment and we don't even own the weapons." 

 

No one had the bottle to say - "oh, and we can't use them without permission too." 

 

I suggest members read this article from Politico which explains "when an independent nuclear deterrent isn't and independent nuclear deterrent." 

 

And don't listen to the village idiot........from the article

 

"But there is one simple question that nobody is asking. When is an independent nuclear deterrent not an independent nuclear deterrent?

To many experts, the answer is all too obvious: when the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington, and when the nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam................

 

The report makes for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles)."

 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

1 hour ago, theblether said:

 

You'll believe anything, gullible be thy middle name. By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? 

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

You said "By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? "

Which two bases are you talking about.

 

If you mean Faslane and Coulport then the answer is; many times between 1972 and 2000!

I have served as an officer in RN nuclear submarines!

Have you?

 

I just do not know where to start with regard to that ridiculously inaccurate 10 year old "politico" link you provided.

Did you actually read it in detail? I very much doubt it as it quotes the wrong Naval Bases, wrong guidance systems, makes no reference to the warheads, command and control etc etc!

It also states the following (which you obviously missed) where it confirms the US support for the UK's Independent nuclear Deterrent! 

It  quotes;

"“It is in America’s interest to have an independent nuclear actor in the region, so that it complicates the decision-making for an aggressor,” Karako says. “Any attack on one NATO ally would raise the risk of retaliation from another under Article Five, and it’s not a case of piling all the responsibility on the United States. That will only work with operational independence.”

BTW; since the warheads and guidance systems are totally independent of any US control how could/would the US actually prevent the UK from launching them?

Once launched it would be a bit late for the US to complain!

 

PS;  Don't bother asking for any proof of my RN service career as I am obviously not posting any such proof on an open forum!

 

 

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You said "By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? "

Which two bases are you talking about.

 

If you mean Faslane and Coulport then the answer is; many times between 1972 and 2000!

I have served as an officer in RN nuclear submarines!

Have you?

 

I just do not know where to start with regard to that ridiculously inaccurate "politico" link you provided.

It quotes the wrong Naval Bases, wrong guidance systems, makes no reference to the warheads etc!

It also states the following (which you obviously missed) where it confirms that the UK's Independent nuclear Deterrent! 

It  quotes;

"“It is in America’s interest to have an independent nuclear actor in the region, so that it complicates the decision-making for an aggressor,” Karako says. “Any attack on one NATO ally would raise the risk of retaliation from another under Article Five, and it’s not a case of piling all the responsibility on the United States. That will only work with operational independence.”

 

BTW; since the warheads and guidance systems are totally independent of any US control how could/would the US actually prevent the UK from launching them?

Once launched it would be  bit late for the US to complain!

 

PS;  Don't bother asking for any proof of my RN service career as I am obviously not posting any such proof on an open forum!

 

 

 

And away you go again. 

 

RN, my brother served, 25 years service. You are beyond deluded claiming the above to be a true reflection of what happened politically. The Americans wanted a bulwark in Europe, the French were acting up, only the UK was stable enough but highly indebted - and had the added benefit of being a permanent of the security council. Wilson had to bend after being caught out claiming the the British army was suited to jungle warfare while the SAS and RN destroyed the communists in Borneo. 

 

The nukes were rammed down his throat. By the way, my bro-in-law collected his Malaysia campaign medal a couple of years ago. 

 

I cannot take you seriously. Utter stupidity to believe that our nukes are independent in the face of all evidence including your benighted NATO saying that they are not truly independent. And you chose to ignore this pointed retort - why? Too many complicated words for you? 

 

But some other experts are deeply skeptical about the current state of affairs. “As a policy statement, it’s ludicrous to say that the US can effectively donate a nuclear program to the UK but have no influence on how it is used,” says Ted Seay, senior policy consultant at the London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), who spent three years as part of the US Mission to NATO.

Advertisement

 

 

I can't be bothered. Really can't be bothered

Anyway, back on topic cos I've had enough of this lunatic nuclear talk. 

 

Not a single one of you has put forward a coherent plan which involves Ukraine winning back their territories. 

 

 

9 hours ago, theblether said:

Anyway, back on topic cos I've had enough of this lunatic nuclear talk. 

 

Not a single one of you has put forward a coherent plan which involves Ukraine winning back their territories. 

 

 

Probably because there isn't one.

It's like the climate charade- lots of talking heads on tv saying we must do something to save the world, while never saying what "something" involves.

9 hours ago, theblether said:

I can't be bothered. Really can't be bothered

I get that feeling every time I come on AN and get the usual chorus of insults.

11 hours ago, theblether said:

Anyway, back on topic cos I've had enough of this lunatic nuclear talk. 

 

Not a single one of you has put forward a coherent plan which involves Ukraine winning back their territories. 

 

 

There was a plan that involved Ukraine not losing their territories in the first instance. Unfortunately Bojo scuppered that back in March 2022.

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

There was a plan that involved Ukraine not losing their territories in the first instance. Unfortunately Bojo scuppered that back in March 2022.

Oh yes, Istanbul. It was all downhill from there. The third successor of Boris, Starmer, seems to want to get the UK directly involved. How about he send 100,000 or so British troops to the front to slow Putin down? Otherwise STFU!!!