So Long And Thanks For All The Fish - Ukraine bombs Russian Nuclear Bombers

[sharot724]

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/6/7213202/

 

Different perspective then the "end of the World" posters in this thread.

 

Trump's envoy Kellogg says Ukrainian strike on Russian strategic bombers could become "forcing function for peace"

[jas007]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

What I do doubt is that the escalation will reach the point of MAD. Again, to repeat, only the insane would allow that to happen, and we are often informed by certain posters on this forum that Putin (and others) are not insane.

Do you not understand the concept of MAD?  Mutually assured destruction. It's a good thing. If both sides are acting rationally and each possesses the capacity to destroy the other, then game theory suggests that it would be in the best interest of both for any conflict not to escalate.  And that's why the drone attack is significant.

 

Not because a few aircraft were destroyed. But because it set a precedent. The West has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and that Russia's nuclear triad is at risk. And if that ever happens on a larger scale, it could cripple Russia's ability to respond. Hence, there could be no absolute guarantee of mutually assured destruction. That destroys the whole game and makes it more likely, not less likely, that Russia will act first and ask questions later. Any other decision could further weaken their strategic position. 

 

Whoever thought up this drone scheme wasn't too bright.  Anyone experienced in nuclear strategy and diplomacy would realize this.   

[transam]

15 hours ago, jas007 said:

And why would the USA do that?  LBJ thought he could win the war with more and more troops. He finally gave up, and if you were around back then you saw his famous speech on TV. And by the time Nixon got on board, Kissinger was his national security advisor. Kissinger recognized that there could be no military solution, and that the MAD doctrine would have meant the end of both the USA and Russia.  And as we all know, Nixon changed the course of history with his trip to China in 1972.  We're living with the consequences of that today.  Nuking China was never in the cards.

But they could have..........

[jas007]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

But they could have..........

Sure. They could have done a lot of things. But knowing that doesn't tell you how it would have turned out, does it?   

[transam]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Sure. They could have done a lot of things. But knowing that doesn't tell you how it would have turned out, does it?   

But you seem to think we are doomed because Russia has nukes, and you STILL can't see my point.

 

But, you are a protector of a tyrant, your zillion posts on the conflict tells all.........🤔

[jas007]

28 minutes ago, transam said:

But you seem to think we are doomed because Russia has nukes, and you STILL can't see my point.

 

But, you are a protector of a tyrant, your zillion posts on the conflict tells all.........🤔

Well, other than regurgitating propaganda, what is your point, exactly?

 

I understand what you seem to believe.

 

-Ukraine is a sovereign country with internationally recognized borders.

-Without any provocation or justification whatsoever, the tyrant Putin woke up one morning and decided to invade Ukraine.

-And now, he must be stopped at any cost, including the end of the human race.

-Anyone who thinks that might not be such a good idea is a "protector of a tyrant." 

 

Anything else?  

[transam]

29 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Well, other than regurgitating propaganda, what is your point, exactly?

 

I understand what you seem to believe.

 

-Ukraine is a sovereign country with internationally recognized borders.

-Without any provocation or justification whatsoever, the tyrant Putin woke up one morning and decided to invade Ukraine.

-And now, he must be stopped at any cost, including the end of the human race.

-Anyone who thinks that might not be such a good idea is a "protector of a tyrant." 

 

Anything else?  

Tyrant Putin did NOT wake up one morning and decide to invade Ukraine, he has had plans for many years, he tested the water in 2014.......

STOP making excuses, you must think we are all daft..........

[jas007]

18 minutes ago, transam said:

Tyrant Putin did NOT wake up one morning and decide to invade Ukraine, he has had plans for many years, he tested the water in 2014.......

STOP making excuses, you must think we are all daft..........

Do you really think the entire world is stupid enough to believe that nonsense?

 

Do you really think Putin had no justification whatsoever? You gloss over the involvement of the CIA in Ukraine over the years, the broken promises of the West, the anti-Russian phobia manufactured to induce paranoia and ensure a continued flow of money to the arms merchants, the history of mistreatment of the Russian speaking people in the Donbas by Ukrainian Nazi elements.  I could go on, but most people realize what happened.

 

So yes, Putin had some justification and, but for some Neocon nutcases, the conflict could have ended several years ago with Ukraine retaining much of its territory and its political structure.  That day has passed,, and Ukraine is now finding out the hard way. 

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Do you not understand the concept of MAD?  Mutually assured destruction. It's a good thing. If both sides are acting rationally and each possesses the capacity to destroy the other, then game theory suggests that it would be in the best interest of both for any conflict not to escalate.  And that's why the drone attack is significant.

 

Not because a few aircraft were destroyed. But because it set a precedent. The West has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and that Russia's nuclear triad is at risk. And if that ever happens on a larger scale, it could cripple Russia's ability to respond. Hence, there could be no absolute guarantee of mutually assured destruction. That destroys the whole game and makes it more likely, not less likely, that Russia will act first and ask questions later. Any other decision could further weaken their strategic position. 

 

Whoever thought up this drone scheme wasn't too bright.  Anyone experienced in nuclear strategy and diplomacy would realize this.   

 

Whoever dreamed up this "drone-strike-threatens-MAD" narrative skipped Nuclear Strategy 101.
 

Claiming a drone strike on parked aircraft breaks MAD is pure fearmongering and reveals a misunderstanding of strategic stability.
 

The real deterrent—submarines and road-mobile missiles—remains untouched.
 

Your claim relies on textbook logical fallacies:

• Slippery slope: "A minor drone strike means the whole triad collapses."
• Straw man: Misrepresenting a tactical raid as a NATO nuclear threat.
• Appeal to fear: Raising the specter of nuclear war to stifle criticism.

Next time, fewer movies, fewer fallacies, more research.

[transam]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Do you really think the entire world is stupid enough to believe that nonsense?

 

Do you really think Putin had no justification whatsoever? You gloss over the involvement of the CIA in Ukraine over the years, the broken promises of the West, the anti-Russian phobia manufactured to induce paranoia and ensure a continued flow of money to the arms merchants, the history of mistreatment of the Russian speaking people in the Donbas by Ukrainian Nazi elements.  I could go on, but most people realize what happened.

 

So yes, Putin had some justification and, but for some Neocon nutcases, the conflict could have ended several years ago with Ukraine retaining much of its territory and its political structure.  That day has passed,, and Ukraine is now finding out the hard way. 

What a load, and you have the front to use the words nut-cases, blimey...........

[johng]

[RayC]

18 hours ago, jas007 said:

Do you not understand the concept of MAD?  Mutually assured destruction. It's a good thing. If both sides are acting rationally and each possesses the capacity to destroy the other, then game theory suggests that it would be in the best interest of both for any conflict not to escalate.  And that's why the drone attack is significant.

 

Not because a few aircraft were destroyed. But because it set a precedent. The West has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and that Russia's nuclear triad is at risk. And if that ever happens on a larger scale, it could cripple Russia's ability to respond. Hence, there could be no absolute guarantee of mutually assured destruction. That destroys the whole game and makes it more likely, not less likely, that Russia will act first and ask questions later. Any other decision could further weaken their strategic position. 

 

Whoever thought up this drone scheme wasn't too bright.  Anyone experienced in nuclear strategy and diplomacy would realize this.   

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

What are you actually saying? Because Ukraine has escalated the situation with its' drone attack then nuclear conflict is now inevitable?

 

"The West has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted ..." whereas, of course, the Kremlin is always true to its' word.

[RayC]

15 hours ago, jas007 said:

Do you really think the entire world is stupid enough to believe that nonsense?

 

Do you really think Putin had no justification whatsoever? You gloss over the involvement of the CIA in Ukraine over the years, the broken promises of the West, the anti-Russian phobia manufactured to induce paranoia and ensure a continued flow of money to the arms merchants, the history of mistreatment of the Russian speaking people in the Donbas by Ukrainian Nazi elements.  I could go on, but most people realize what happened.

 

So yes, Putin had some justification and, but for some Neocon nutcases, the conflict could have ended several years ago with Ukraine retaining much of its territory and its political structure.  That day has passed,, and Ukraine is now finding out the hard way. 

 

And you fail to mention the involvement of the GRU and SVR in Ukraine or Russian support for the separatists in Donbass (including right-wing Russians fighting in the region).

 

So, CIA involvement and the denazification of Ukraine justifies the annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine? No, I don't think so.

[jas007]

19 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

Whoever dreamed up this "drone-strike-threatens-MAD" narrative skipped Nuclear Strategy 101.
 

Claiming a drone strike on parked aircraft breaks MAD is pure fearmongering and reveals a misunderstanding of strategic stability.
 

The real deterrent—submarines and road-mobile missiles—remains untouched.
 

Your claim relies on textbook logical fallacies:

• Slippery slope: "A minor drone strike means the whole triad collapses."
• Straw man: Misrepresenting a tactical raid as a NATO nuclear threat.
• Appeal to fear: Raising the specter of nuclear war to stifle criticism.

Next time, fewer movies, fewer fallacies, more research.

You, my friend, are the one who fails to comprehend Nuclear Strategy 101.  What I've outlined IS nuclear strategy 101.  Diplomacy and geopolitics 101. International relations 101. Basic stuff everyone who studies the matter should know. What I outlined is exactly why the drone attack was stupid beyond belief, if the goal was to preserve peace.  That may be a big IF, but we'll go with it for now. 

 

Just for kicks, and to educate yourself, you should do some research. And if you do, you'll find that what I've outlined isn't Russia propaganda and isn't fear-mongering. And no, I don't misunderstand anything.

 

The US Pentagon has studied the issues extensively.

 

Robert McNamara pioneered the concept of MAD n the 60s, and by way of computer simulations found that MAD was a viable way to maintain deterrence.  And what happens if the balance of terror is threatened?  

 

Again, the Pentagon itself studied these matters extensively in 1983. Project Prophet. I can only assume you've never heard of it.  What they found was that the concept of a "limited" nuclear was was nonsense, even though a nation could still maintain its retaliatory capacity following a limited strike on part of its nuclear triad and thus preserve a degree of deterrence. There was always the threat of rapid escalation. Then why was the recent drone attack on the Russian bombers significant? Because of other well know concepts and the obvious breach of trust. It violated the START Treaty.  Attacking the parked Russian bombers could have been interpreted as simply the opening salvo in a much larger scale operation.  And the response of  logical actor?  Rapid escalation, lest they hesitate and lose some or all of their remaining nuclear trad. 

 

And your slippery slope and straw man nonsense is getting old, at this point.  Consult Chat GPT all you want, but it isn't that smart yet. 

[rabas]

Why N war talk is just more Putin propaganda.

 

Israel waltzes into downtown Tehran in central Iran right past Russian enhanced air defenses, in broad daylight, six times. How? With 100s of Western high tech aircraft  and systems.

 

But the disparity between Russian and Western high tech strategic arms systems could well be more. Russia has always lacked the West's high tech prowess and more so, the super tech required to ensure aging nukes work correctly.  Radiation rapidly ages materials.

 

Putin's bluster and weapons claims are more superficial deterrence. Putin knows where he stands, unless the generals are lying to him again.  Either way, Putin won't start an N war. Even if he tried his generals wouldn't go along and may even revolt. The military is not happy about losing 30 years of equipment, a million soldiers, face, and looking foolish.  No N war.

 

[PatThaiM]

One thing is sure, if Putin decides to nuke Ukraine, the US will not risk their own skin by nuking Russia.

Zelensky should give in now, give 20% land rather than a lot more.

[Hummin]

21 minutes ago, PatThaiM said:

One thing is sure, if Putin decides to nuke Ukraine, the US will not risk their own skin by nuking Russia.

Zelensky should give in now, give 20% land rather than a lot more.

Nuking their friend Iran is better. After all, just showing off right? 

 

Proxy targets is how it have been, and will be. 

 

They protect themselves with a unified agreement. States leaders murders, despots often gets Amnesty and safety while their country goes to hell 

[PatThaiM]

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

Nuking their friend Iran is better. After all, just showing off right? 

 

Proxy targets is how it have been, and will be. 

 

They protect themselves with a unified agreement. States leaders murders, despots often gets Amnesty and safety while their country goes to hell 

Why is everyone so anti Iran?

qq