This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Russia Vs USA who would win?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 240

Sir Fox

How did this thread spiral into another discussion about the Ukrainian Civil War?!

Reply 241

james22

Original post by Lionheart96

Yes that's why they have certain conditions that must be met first for them to do it i.e. being overwhelmed by a superior conventional force e.g. The USA. :facepalm:

It still does not mean that they will. Where in their military doctorine does it say that they will use nuclear weapons?

Reply 242

namename

Original post by Lionheart96

1. im not Russian.
2. You called me names
3. not sure if you're a troll or just mentally handicapped.

What names? Tell me when I called you names?
Of course you are not Russian, so you spit out Russian propaganda, word by word as we can see on numerous other sites and comment sections, heavily populated with Russian trolls. And, of course, Russians never confess that they are Russians, they even change their names to sound like Western names, and if you ask them directly, they say something like "We are all Slavic souls" or "I am one of the brotherhood of Slavs", you are so much ashamed of being Russians.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 243

Lionheart96

Original post by james22

It still does not mean that they will. Where in their military doctorine does it say that they will use nuclear weapons?

Hold on let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Military+doctrine+of+russia

Reply 244

Lionheart96

Original post by namename

What names? Tell me when I called you names?
Of course you are not Russian, so you spit out Russian propaganda, word by word as we can see on numerous other sites and comment sections, heavily populated with Russian trolls. And, of course, Russians never confess that they are Russians, they even change their names to sound like Russians, and if you ask them directly, they say something like "We are all Slavic souls" or "I am one of the brotherhood of Slavs", you are so much ashamed of being Russians.

I have no response to this complete and utter stupidity. go rock yourself to sleep in the corner wearing you tin foil hat.

Reply 245

james22

Original post by Lionheart96

Hold on let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Military+doctrine+of+russia

It doesn't say anywhere (at least not in the current doctrine) that they will use nuclear weapons.

Reply 246

Sir Fox

Original post by Lionheart96

2. You called me names.

Mememe, name calling. Shall I send him into time-out?

Original post by namename

And, of course, Russians never confess that they are Russians, they even change their names to sound like Russians, and if you ask them directly, they say something like "We are all Slavic souls" or "I am one of the brotherhood of Slavs", you are so much ashamed of being Russians.

Hold it right there, McCarthy!

Reply 247

namename

Original post by Lionheart96

I have no response to this complete and utter stupidity. go rock yourself to sleep in the corner wearing you tin foil hat.

So, I didn't call you names, so Russian. You lie as you breathe.

Reply 248

Lionheart96

Original post by james22

It doesn't say anywhere (at least not in the current doctrine) that they will use nuclear weapons.

Under the new doctrine, Russia continues to develop and modernize its nuclear capability. "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

Reply 249

Lionheart96

Original post by Sir Fox

Mememe, name calling. Shall I send him into time-out?

Hold it right there, McCarthy!

Yes please :smile:

Reply 250

james22

Original post by Lionheart96

"reserves the right to" does absolutely not mean that they will use them. The two statements have very different meanings. I reserve the right to sue someone who crashes their car into me, it doesn't mean that I will though (I could easily choose not to).

Reply 251

Lionheart96

Original post by james22

I'm done with this thread, it feels like i'm trying to explain why 2+2=4 to 1 year olds.

Reply 252

james22

Original post by Lionheart96

I'm done with this thread, it feels like i'm trying to explain why 2+2=4 to 1 year olds.

If reversed that analogy holds well, since you clearly fail to grasp basic English.

Reply 253

Observatory

Original post by Sir Fox

No, I said 'conventional war'. Nuclear weapons are a poor indicator of power because no one would dare to use them anyway. Think of Pakistan - would you consider them to be a particularly powerful country?

Is it not one? Without its nuclear weapons, would Pakistan be an ally in the WoT, or a target of it?

And Pakistan's main weakness is the short range of its delivery systems, which can't reach the US.

Reply 254

Sir Fox

Original post by Observatory

Is it not one?

Are you aware of anyone taking Pakistan seriously? Their only importance lies in their abilities to have an impact on a number of conflicts that are raging around and within it (Afghanistan and their own insurgency) and their futile feud with India.

Without its nuclear weapons, would Pakistan be an ally in the WoT, or a target of it?

It's both. Helping the US fight the Taliban while secretly aiding them, publicly complaining about drone strikes on their territory while secretly either welcoming them (an insurgent dead from a Hellfire is an insurgent the Pakistani Armed Forces don't have to deal with) or just being plain unable to do anything against them.

And Pakistan's main weakness is the short range of its delivery systems, which can't reach the US.

Pakistan's weaknesses are its extreme poverty and instability. Pakistan is definitely not a particularly powerful country, it just happens to have some nuclear weapons and be located in a particularly interesting spot. The only reason most countries (apart from India, maybe) are concerned with Pakistan's nukes is because of their (legitimate) fear that Pakistan does not have proper control over them and could easily lose some to insurgents, not because other countries are particularly afraid of these nukes being used on them.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 255

namename

Original post by Lionheart96

I'm done with this thread, it feels like i'm trying to explain why 2+2=4 to 1 year olds.

Try to learn English, vatnik, then maybe people would understand what you say.

Reply 256

Observatory

Original post by Sir Fox

Are you aware of anyone taking Pakistan seriously?

India, US, China, Saudi, Iran.

Their only importance lies in their abilities to have an impact on a number of conflicts that are raging around and within it (Afghanistan and their own insurgency) and their futile feud with India.

Yes - they are able to maintain multiple pointless and destructive conflicts with much more powerful countries and no one even talks about putting a violent end to this.

It's a non-entity that has been elevated to the 2nd or 3rd rank of powers by its possession of nuclear weapons.

Reply 257

Lionheart96

Original post by namename

Try to learn English, vatnik, then maybe people would understand what you say.

Yeah put you tin foil hat back on you **** nobody understands what the **** you're going on about.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 258

Lionheart96

Original post by james22

If reversed that analogy holds well, since you clearly fail to grasp basic English.

My English is fine thank you very much, what you seem to fail to grasp is basic logic, it seems to evade you. "only because they have a clause in their military doctrine which says they will use nuclear weapons if overwhelmed by superior conventional forces it doesn't mean they will hurrrr durrrrr" no **** you ****ing moron thats why they have certain conditions that must be met first.

Reply 259

Lionheart96

Original post by namename

Who are "we", you, the voices in your head and your Kremlin handler? You for an outdated memo, tovarich. Even Russian TV now shows Russian military, reporting from the front line. And Ukraine doesn't have the tanks Russia has, so they are Russian tanks. God, lying is a national sport for vatniks.
You are so optimistic about your drunken and corrupt army. They are all on drugs, whatever the Ukrainian army takes an outpost, it's full of used syringes, unless you are all diabetics.
More likely, Russians druggies and alkies would march a little deeper into the territory, where they will be destroyed by Ukrainian army, with local citizens finishing off the rest of these sad species of humanity. And "you" would not even know it, because, in your new bought because rubble is no more TV shows you only what you want to be shown. You'd probably got reports about a great victory and jump from joy, while paying 1 million rubbles for a loaf of bread.

1. by we i meant anyone who has more than 2 brain cells, this obviously excludes you
2. "They are all on drugs, whatever the Ukrainian army takes an outpost, it's full of used syringes, unless you are all diabetics". used syringes? The ukrainian army taking back outposts? My friend you are delusional.
3. Sub-human? wow you know the nazis thought the same thing about the Russians, the Nazis no longer exist, you are a racist scum, who doesn't deserve any better that to be laughed at for the complete trash that you just wrote here.
4. You seem to love to hate on Russian people (which makes you a racist), and yet it is you jumping from joy whenever you listen to western medias propaganda.