Does the Military-Industrial Complex want war with Russia?

So we agree that the Budapest Memorandum has nothing to do with obligating the US to come to the defense of Ukraine?

Good! Glad we're all in agreement!

 

A Treaty violated by Russia itself, but you wish to gloss over that stuff.

 

And what exactly are these "Side Agreements"?

You know, it is largely proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are actually talking about when you say something like that, then do not actually provide any of these "agreements". All that shows you doing is spinning in circles, and showing over and over that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Which is a large difference between us, as I actually name them. In fact, I welcome anybody to research them for themselves and make up their own minds about the facts.

As opposed to you. You expect people to just accept what you say because you say so.

 

Actually we gave our word, which didn't require a formal Treaty; we give out mutual defense agreements all the time. You wouldn't know that, because you think National Review is a valid objective source of news. Ukraine disarmed itself based on those assurances, and now that some Democrat got elected you Party shills will pretend they never existed.

 

Your babbling is of no interest; it's all there in my link and others can be found as well. You just keep on being you, making up stupid strawmen and pretending you know what you're talking about. Don't forget to Post Last with some more sniveling BS.

 

And where exactly do I "gloss over" that? Hell, I outright said as such already.

So exactly how am I "glossing it over" when I outright stated that Russia has violated it? Not once but multiple times.

 

Sorry, I am going to call "complete and utter coprolite" on that, as the only link you have provided in this entire discussion is a single Wikipedia link.

 

You're an angry drunk who got tossed out of two branches. It was the only organizations where your type can function and get some petty authority over others and abuse it. I've seen your type dozens of times. Stick to driving a truck and working by yourself and cash those disability checks and head for the liquor store every day.

 

Your contradicting yourself is a 'plus' in your mind? lol

 

Which is all most people will need to do their own research on what was said here, unfortunately for you. You post your rubbish, then demand everybody write a novel or you win or something, lol lame tactic. Nobody takes you seriously, here or on any other board; some just feel sorry for an old drunk, is all.

 

I assume you are being facetious?

 

That's funny on a couple of levels; personal, and as a matter of editorial policy, NR is as gun ho war dog as you seem to be.

Please source the actual text of "our word" so I can know exactly what we pinky promised to Ukraine.

 

No, I am being completely serious. How exactly did the "American military industrial complex" cause Germany, Japan, and Italy attack other nations?

You are the one that made that claim, it is up to you to prove it to be accurate.

 

No... I made that statement to show how silly it was. The post I 3was responding to stated that the Military Industrial Complex causes all our wars. I made that statement in the spirit of ... "Yeah, and the Martians cause wars too".... I was making a funny.

 

By Feb 2022 when Russia finally had to intervene to stop
the bombardment of Donetsk and other evils, Ukraine had
700,000 NATO trained and equipped soldiers, a lot more
than Russia brought in.

 

If you are referring to Ukraine returning the nuclear armed missiles to Russia,
Ukraine was not in control of those, didn't have the launch codes, and
the nukes are way past their use by date - they won't still work.

 

American launch codes start with the National Command Authority (President). Russian codes are held at the two star General Level... so maybe they did have them.
What happens to nukes? Do their skins dry up or something? Most munitions last A LONG TIME.

 

Nukes are different, contain different ingredients.

 

But its the syrup that goes bad... right? (I'm saying this as a guy that Commanded a nuclear capable Heavy Artillery Battery in Germany back in the 80's. I had six nuke "ready rounds" but they were kept a few miles away in a secure area manned by MP's. This was back in the days when each round had to be "assembled" to achieve various yields... pain in the neck... constant practicing. The concept of a "use by" date never entered into the conversation, but, like I said, we didn't store them ourselves. That was done for us.

 

Actually most nukes in the past 60 years were designed with an almost indefinite shelf life. Most were stored for decades and still fully functional. Especially the smaller battlefield nukes, which were much more basic in their design being rather simple implosion devices without the more sophisticated boosters like tritium or deuterium. Most devices are rather simple, a plutonium pit surrounded by explosive lenses.

Hell, the main gravity nuclear warhead of the US is still the B83, and those are all 40 years old or older. They pretty much just pull them out of the bunker every decade or so, test the electronics, then pop them back in again. It's not like plutonium will "go bad" anytime in the next dozen thousand years.

 

A war with Russia is a nuclear war, after which there would be nothing left of either country. So I doubt that the MIC wants the U.S. to go to war with Russia.

 

I think I'm out of date

 

If they can't make money off it then they won't want it, whether we win or lose
is immaterial to them, they only care about the money they make.

I agree they want to avoid a nuclear war almost as much they need to avoid peace.

 

A lot of this I know because early in my military career I actually worked at a Navy Ordinance Depot. And we stored nukes and other weapons from missiles to sea mines.

The nuke bunkers were accessed maybe once a year. And the ordinance people would simply go in, run some tests, then lock the bunker back up again. Almost all of the ordinance used has a fairly long shelf life so long as they are stored correctly. When the Iowa class Battleships were reactivated in the 1980s, they still used powder and shells made in the 1940s. Even at the end of their life when they were all mothballed, they were still using shells and powder made for use in WWII.

Hell, in 1986 we even found a bunker that we Marines owned on the base but had been forgotten since the early days of the Vietnam War. All of the rounds and everything else in it dated to the early 1960s, including cases of M26 grenades.



Those were so old that only our Gunny and Chief Warrant Officer had even seen them before other than in photos in an old manual. About the only ordinance we did send to be destroyed were the M31 rifle grenades (we did not have any M1 rifles needed to use them). We also sent off all the 60mm mortar rounds, as we had not had a mortar in the unit for decades.

They were so old we were supposed to destroy them, but instead the CO decided it would be better to expend them in training than send them to the incinerator. And it was quite hairy, as I was the driver that had to haul it all 80 miles from Los Angeles to Camp Pendleton where we had the ranges set up to use. The back of my truck filled with hand grenades and other ordinance over 2 decades old in early rush hour traffic. But over 90% of them worked just fine, and remember none of them had even been inspected in over 2 decades.

 

A "limited nuclear war" is entirely possible. In the 89's we planned every day for such a war in Europe... I can explain if you want.. I Commanded a nuke-capable artillery battery in Germany at the time. What it comes down to is the use of small, tactical nukes to support armies in the field, without either side wanting to use them against enemy homelands... for fear of getting their own vaporized.