I think I agree with most of that. Just two things. Around a week or two ago Ambassadors to Russia from NATO countries (I think from UK and France) were summoned to the MFA in Moscow and Russian commentators agreed, that this was a clear warning that was passed to them that Russia will hit bases abroad if the attacks within Russia will go on (of course it was a bit more detailed). My second point is, that Russia already has won, on all levels. What happens is just pure desperation from NATO's side, which makes this imo so dangerous. EU/NATO just act blindly and they don't listen to the warnings.
Discussion
Maybe. But... After just a few days of this warning, ukrainians bombed Donetsk with british missiles and a few days later than that, they bombed Belgorod with American ammunition. In the second case Russians said it was a tochka-u but it was a russian lie that it was a tochka-u and two days later it was revealed it was american ammunition. I think i might find these if you want but look also yourself. So... The warning was another russian red line crossed by the west. That being said, the Russians still may retaliate as they did with the invasion. If you remember, USA said that Russia will invade Ukraine at 16 of February (because they knew that at this date the Ukrainians would start to bomb Donetsk again). Russians didn't invade right after that, but they eventually invaded a few days later, so who knows what is going to happen.
Oh and about the desperation.
USA since president Bush abandoned the agreement they had with Russians of reducing nukes and since then all they tried to do was to implement the first strike capability. Now they try as it seems to remove the earlie warning defence of Russia. So desperate yes, but surely they want to have that option. Personally i am really sure that they prefer a nuclear conflict than losing their power, IF they think they have a big chance with a successful first nuclear strike. As you said... They are psychos and they have those old plans and they have the button.
Speaking about sociopaths...
https://video.nostr.build/8555bad9487ab996d40f019e9f3d19c3a9857ae68629397360d7641ac1db7545.mp4
Exactly. After they crossed the red line of bombing proper Russian territory and killing civilians with NATO ammunition, after the warning, and with the Russians not reacting as they said, now they call for systematic bombardment of russian territory. Not a surprise for me, and others, it was expected.
Good point. You know this is not tit for tat. If it would be like this, we would already have had Armageddon and we wouldn't discuss these things.
Btw nuclear bombs are not like Chernobyl. They blow and they have a massive effect but after a fairly short time the situation comes to normal rather quickly. With Chernobyl and Fukushima the damage is far worse. The real danger, i think, for humanity is if humanity has the ability to maintain the nuclear power plants. Not sure if that's the case after a nuclear war...
Here I think we disagree. I'm for nuclear energy but against nuclear weapons.
I am against nuclear weapons too.
Nuclear energy scares me.
But the point was that the western psychopaths probably think that they can survive
I get it. This is the strange part. Because whenever they make these war games/simulations with their computers, the outcome is always the same. Nobody wins and nobody eg. nothing survives. Everyone in these higher echelons of power are aware of that.
Not with a successful first strike.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy)
That's what i was saying
There's no "successful" first strike. You forget the "Dead Hand".
Not me forgetting. It's USA since Bush. That's why Ray McGovern is anxious all the time. Haven't you heard him saying that? I think the best discussion on the matter was in a Gonzalo Lira's round table.
I'm aware of that. I refer to my previous note. They know there will be no winner. There's no point for pursuing this "plan". They lost and they know it. But politicians can't admit their drastic failures and miscalculations, especially in this case. I think that's why they go "all-in". It's the sunk cost fallacy problem which they can't escape from.
How many people died as a result of Fukushima and Cherynobl vs Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Tell me again which one is worse.
Good point sure.
Still i can argue that nuclear plants can be more dangerous potentially in the worst case scenario . For Chernobyl they say the deaths were from 4000 to 16000 but we will never know really. We don't know about Fukushima either. The thing is that they can kill you silently and the contamination is far longer. For example a few years ago caesium in the area of Thessaloniki was many times above the limit during the winter , just because of people burning wood in their fireplace.
I know in some countries there is a debate about the nuclear energy. Not the case in our conversation.