A lot of those people were probably born after the Cold War ended and have no context for how bad it could be. Nuclear war has just not been a big topic for decades.

Rapier108 said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Societal memory is no more than 80 years. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were 78 years ago.

That's why there are abject idiots that don't understand what a nuclear war would entail.

---

Post cold war children would do themselves a service by reading the second half of "history of the atomic bomb", it's just a series of firsthand accounts on the minutes, hours, and days, immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hell on earth is the closest approximation of the stories and it turns my stomach just recollect the accounts I never want to live through it nor do I wish it on my worst enemies.

---

And it was still 100% the right thing to do.

---

And not just for the save American lives that didn't have to invade Japan.

We've gone almost 80 years w/out a nuclear device being used in war. W/out their use ending WWII, I seriously doubt we would have made it this long. And since by the early 50s fusion devices were available, it could have been much, much worse.

Richard Rhodes two book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" are must reads. They are mostly history, with a little science. Really good reads.

Gaius Julius Bevo said:

---

Americans are easily manipulated. They watch TV news and read social media. Their hearts are in the right place, but the USA is proving to be full of fools lacking the ability to think critically.

---

Or even in the interest of national good. They have a chip on their shoulder and feel like we owe the world something.

El_Zorro said:

---

#3 means I get my shot at being warlord of West Texas.

---

Going to have to fight me for it.

halfastros81 said:

---

They would support it as long as it didn't impact them. Therein lies the problem, it could and likely would impact everyone and none positively.

A line in the sand does need to be drawn but this isn't the place or time to draw it . What exactly is our critical National interest in Ukraine ?

---

Because waiting to draw a line in the sand until it's the sand on your own shore isn't the most prudent course of action.

There are potential bad actors worldwide watching this to see how it plays out. If Russia successfully achieved gains and/or isn't sufficiently crippled both economically and militarily then it will reinforce the viability of similar action elsewhere.

Not saying troop intervention or nuclear conflict by any means but if we all keep backing up then it sets that expectation and others, if not Putin himself, will do it again. Putin has to lose here and now and we have to provide the support to Ukraine and, if it comes to it, Eastern Europe, to ensure it.

Quote:

---

Because waiting to draw a line in the sand until it's the sand on your own shore isn't the most prudent course of action.

---

When you're talking nukes it damn sure is.

Rapier108 said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Societal memory is no more than 80 years. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were 78 years ago.

That's why there are abject idiots that don't understand what a nuclear war would entail.

---

Post cold war children would do themselves a service by reading the second half of "history of the atomic bomb", it's just a series of firsthand accounts on the minutes, hours, and days, immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hell on earth is the closest approximation of the stories and it turns my stomach just recollect the accounts I never want to live through it nor do I wish it on my worst enemies.

---

And it was still 100% the right thing to do.

---

Absolutely, because it took such a horrific weapon to change the Japanese culture away from the Empire of Japan. It's still sad how much suffering and death some people require before they turn from evil.

It's also highly likely that the use of the bombs also prevented WW3 or at the very least war with the soviets. The Soviets always thought the democratic west was weak, but they never questioned if we had the stones to use nukes. We've readily played that card before and made the answer quite clear. I honestly think it might even be saving us here from Putin at least being hesitant to use strategic weapons on Ukraine or NATO. History says that the US military can get very ugly, very fast even if our president is a vegetable.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Because waiting to draw a line in the sand until it's the sand on your own shore isn't the most prudent course of action.

---

When you're talking nukes it damn sure is.

---

Did you read all the way through? I said NOT nukes. But if they know you're unwilling to engage conventionally then they have no reason to expect that you have the balls to respond with nuclear armament.

That's the basis of MAD as deterrent. It doesn't work if everyone knows you won't do it. So, you have to be willing to go far enough via other means to at least create appreciable uncertainty as to weather you will or won't.

If you won't punch me or shoot me when I attack you then what makes me believe you'll lob a grenade at me? Simple analogy but you get the idea.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

I have nothing in common with these people. National divorce!

---

Russian bot.

I understand completely. I just don't completely agree.

The point is not when WE would pop off a nuke, but when Putin would.

He may (probably not, but we don't know) go desperate at that gut punch. Ukraine isn't worth finding out where his line is.

Anyone who says they're ok with nuclear war over anything but an actual invasion or first strike by another country does not understand what nuclear war means.

cecil77 said:

---

I understand completely. I just don't completely agree.

The point is not when WE would pop off a nuke, but when Putin would.

He may (probably not, but we don't know) go desperate at that gut punch. Ukraine isn't worth finding out where his line is.

---

They're inextricably linked. His calculus is predicated on his expectation of our response. If you'll notice, he's most belligerent and aggressive when he thinks he can get away with it or meets minimal resistance that he deems acceptable. Putin "probes with bayonets".

To beat Putin you have to make the consequences unacceptable to him. Unfortunately, our boob in chief did the exact opposite from square one and is now playing catch-up while trying to remain squishy. You can't do both. Squishy gets you in a war with Russians. Firmness (See Reagan) keeps you out of one.

Quote:

---

Hell, we have people on F16 who have wanted the nukes to fly since day 1.

---

Yes, anyone staying up to speed reading either or both of the Ukraine threads will have seen a good number of posters on here wanting us to risk nuclear war.

It's probably higher than a third on those threads.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Hell, we have people on F16 who have wanted the nukes to fly since day 1.

---

Yes, anyone staying up to speed reading either or both of the Ukraine threads will have seen a good number of posters on here wanting us to risk nuclear war.

It's probably higher than a third on those threads.

---

If you know anything about Russian doctrine, history, or Putin you know that backing down to Putin is what gets you nuclear war with Putin.

Many Americans have absolutely no idea how bad things can get.

Rossticus said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Hell, we have people on F16 who have wanted the nukes to fly since day 1.

---

Yes, anyone staying up to speed reading either or both of the Ukraine threads will have seen a good number of posters on here wanting us to risk nuclear war.

It's probably higher than a third on those threads.

---

If you know anything about Russian doctrine, history, or Putin you know that backing down to Putin is what gets you nuclear war with Putin.

---

Well, that's the crux of the gamble, isn't it?

I could be wrong. What if you are? Neither of us have any way of knowing who is right until we say, "F* it. Let's roll the dice and find out." The folks in that 1/3 are the ones who are willing to risk nuclear war to find out. Most of us who lived through the Cold War are a little more hesitant because of the potential cataclysmic death and end of humanity aspect of that.

He's already mortally wounded and bleeding out with his charge on Ukraine. Let him die there and let us avoid the chance of nuclear war.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

It's worth the risk to protect Ukraine, a country that 80% of Americans could not identify on an unmarked map.

"A third of Americans favor U.S. military action in Ukraine even if it risks a nuclear confrontation with Russia...."

https://www.newsweek.com/third-americans-risk-nuclear-war-russia-ukraine-poll-1688473?amp=1





I have nothing in common with these people. National divorce!

---

I wonder how many of the folks for war in Ukraine fall into the same group that would flee our own country if we were invaded? https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-of-the-brave-rip-war-poll-democrats-fight-enlist-vietnam-soldiers-invasion-ukraine-patriotism-culture-war-isolationist-military-recruitment-11646929607

Rossticus said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

Yep, we have 2 generations now that would look like "One Second After". a countrywide EMP would turn modern US into Mad Max more than $10 gas would. We might be 3 missed meals away from anarchy, but a full 24 hours without a power-grid and no hope of a power-grid would be apocalyptic.

---

You know, a couple years of this might not be the worst thing in the world. Thin the herd. If you don't have the will to survive then…. ? People are too comfortable these days. Nuclear apocalypse builds character.

---

The Vault-Tec company has a spot in a shelter just for you!

The line in the sand is when he attacks someone we have a historical alliance with…. A NATO member . We have no such alliance with Ukraine and had they wanted to be a part of that alliance they had plenty of time to do so but did not. In the meantime , work to strengthen NATO conventionally and otherwise . The deterrent he and most power hungry despots understand best is brute force.

Not that I trust this current clown show to do the right thing but they are not going to be around forever and I believe they will get their wings clipped severely within a year . Until then I suppose prayer is the best approach.

YouBet said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Hell, we have people on F16 who have wanted the nukes to fly since day 1.

---

Yes, anyone staying up to speed reading either or both of the Ukraine threads will have seen a good number of posters on here wanting us to risk nuclear war.

It's probably higher than a third on those threads.

---

If you know anything about Russian doctrine, history, or Putin you know that backing down to Putin is what gets you nuclear war with Putin.

---

Well, that's the crux of the gamble, isn't it?

I could be wrong. What if you are? Neither of us have any way of knowing who is right until we say, "F* it. Let's roll the dice and find out." The folks in that 1/3 are the ones who are willing to risk nuclear war to find out. Most of us who lived through the Cold War are a little more hesitant because of the potential cataclysmic death and end of humanity aspect of that.

He's already mortally wounded and bleeding out with his charge on Ukraine. Let him die there and let us avoid the chance of nuclear war.

---

I agree fully. I was only around for the end of the Cold War but I have no desire for nuclear conflict. It's wholly unnecessary. If this is navigated competently (no small task given our current leadership) there's no reason for any direct US involvement, or even expanded outside intervention beyond equipment, supplies, and intel support.

We should maintain our current course unless our hand is forced with a direct attack. But we should be consistently firm in our position so as to maintain crystal clear expectations. No ambiguity and no waffling. Do what needs to be done to ensure that Ukraine secures this win on their own while bleeding out Putin and ensuring his and Russia's impotence for the remainder of his time in power.

Viet Nam....Iraq....where will it end?

wbt5845 said:

---

Anyone who says they're ok with nuclear war over anything but an actual invasion or first strike by another country does not understand what nuclear war means.

---

Would it knock out Tik Tok?

Anyone remember that deagel website and it's doomsday predictions?

McKelveysCurse said:

---

Viet Nam....Iraq....where will it end?

---

If the history of the world is any indication, never.

They need to do a national televising of "The Day After" and maybe it will change a few of these peoples minds.

I'd love to know the average age of that 1/3 who would risk nuclear war.

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

I'd like to see the same survey have questions like:
1. "Do you know what the MAD theory entails?" Apparently, a good segment of the population doesn't. It's mind boggling.
2. "Is there such a thing as limited nuclear engagement?".
3. "Do you know what an EMP does, as well as the Compton Effect from a high altitude detonation?"

---

4. Do you want your children and family to be turned to ashes in a split second during a nuclear war?
5. Do you want to see your children die from radiation poisoning?

This is what happens when 80% of the population doesn't have living memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Rossticus said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Hell, we have people on F16 who have wanted the nukes to fly since day 1.

---

Yes, anyone staying up to speed reading either or both of the Ukraine threads will have seen a good number of posters on here wanting us to risk nuclear war.

It's probably higher than a third on those threads.

---

If you know anything about Russian doctrine, history, or Putin you know that backing down to Putin is what gets you nuclear war with Putin.

---

Well, that's the crux of the gamble, isn't it?

I could be wrong. What if you are? Neither of us have any way of knowing who is right until we say, "F* it. Let's roll the dice and find out." The folks in that 1/3 are the ones who are willing to risk nuclear war to find out. Most of us who lived through the Cold War are a little more hesitant because of the potential cataclysmic death and end of humanity aspect of that.

He's already mortally wounded and bleeding out with his charge on Ukraine. Let him die there and let us avoid the chance of nuclear war.

---

I agree fully. I was only around for the end of the Cold War but I have no desire for nuclear conflict. It's wholly unnecessary. If this is navigated competently (no small task given our current leadership) there's no reason for any direct US involvement, or even expanded outside intervention beyond equipment, supplies, and intel support.

We should maintain our current course unless our hand is forced with a direct attack. But we should be consistently firm in our position so as to maintain crystal clear expectations. No ambiguity and no waffling. Do what needs to be done to ensure that Ukraine secures this win on their own while bleeding out Putin and ensuring his and Russia's impotence for the remainder of his time in power.

---

Agreed.

These people just are not very smart.

It's for the updoots, bro.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

It's worth the risk to protect Ukraine, a country that 80% of Americans could not identify on an unmarked map.

"A third of Americans favor U.S. military action in Ukraine even if it risks a nuclear confrontation with Russia...."

https://www.newsweek.com/third-americans-risk-nuclear-war-russia-ukraine-poll-1688473?amp=1





I have nothing in common with these people. National divorce!

---

And the one third of the people that want US military action are the first ones to run to Canada or Mexico if they are called up in a draft.

Yuuuuup

OP is dishonest as hell. It doesn't say "35% are ok with nuclear war" It said,

Quote:

---

that 35 percent of Americans supported the U.S. taking military action "even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia"

---

Calling Putin a war criminal "risks" nuclear war. Sanctioning him "risks" nuclear war. We have always been "at risk" for that, even when no war was going on at all. If you guys want 0% risk of nuclear war then you should be demanding we send our entire GDP to Putin's personal bank account. Let him invade America and take whatever land he wants. Offer him your daughters and sons as concubines.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

It's worth the risk to protect Ukraine, a country that 80% of Americans could not identify on an unmarked map.

"A third of Americans favor U.S. military action in Ukraine even if it risks a nuclear confrontation with Russia...."

https://www.newsweek.com/third-americans-risk-nuclear-war-russia-ukraine-poll-1688473?amp=1





I have nothing in common with these people. National divorce!

---

So you preferred course of action is for us to grovel at Putin's feet?

Trump isn't President any more.