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!

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.

The Covid farce has beaten folks down and increased their "I don't give a **** anymore" attitude...

Domestic violence and suicide rates have also increased...

Folks are becoming numb to things that used to scare them...

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!

---

Maybe this explains 81M after all. Mouth breathers.

I'm smelling a rigged poll similar to a rigged election. Garbage.

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?"

More than a third of Americans probably couldn't find Texas on a map that doesn't mean anything

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

Newsflash:

Nukes will hit 1) Military Targets 2) Urban core population centers of finance.

New York with half of New York City population gone? Goes purple.
Pennsylvania with half of Philadelphia population gone? Goes solid Red.
Georgia with half of Atlanta gone? Returns to solid Red.
DC with half the population of Metro gone? Causes Virginia to go solid Red.
With the exception of Vermont, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii..... this would be the result in state after state.

Liberals should rethink this one....... because it will be an overwhelming hit that disproportionately eliminates more of it's voters. In addition, while most population centers and major bases are destroyed and the losses unfathomable, the rebuild will lead to a decisively more Conservative population and a strengthened working middle class. Rebuilding after a nuclear war drives woke politics to a mere afterthought.

Lets get this straight though -- It is captain obvious that it is best for EVERYONE, the environment, and humanity around the world if we do NOT have nuclear war. Duh.

I think that 80% figure you cite is being quite generous.

El_Zorro said:

---

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

---

Just make sure to stock up on bottle caps.

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.

More than likely, these same people polled are the same ones who said they would not defend America if it were invaded.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Newsflash:

Nukes will hit 1) Military Targets 2) Urban core population centers of finance.

New York with half of New York City population gone? Goes purple.
Pennsylvania with half of Philadelphia population gone? Goes solid Red.
Georgia with half of Atlanta gone? Returns to solid Red.
DC with half the population of Metro gone? Causes Virginia to go solid Red.
With the exception of Vermont, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii..... this would be the result in state after state.

Liberals should rethink this one....... because it will be an overwhelming hit that disproportionately eliminates more of it's voters. In addition, while most population centers and major bases are destroyed and the losses unfathomable, the rebuild will lead to a decisively more Conservative population and a strengthened working middle class. Rebuilding after a nuclear war drives woke politics to a mere afterthought.

Lets get this straight though -- It is captain obvious that it is best for EVERYONE, the environment, and humanity around the world if we do NOT have nuclear war. Duh.

---

If it ever comes to pass, there won't be Red vs Blue. There won't be elections. The USA would exist as a fairy tail passed down over the generations. On the plus side, no more 24/7 news cycle and social media.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Newsflash:

Nukes will hit 1) Military Targets 2) Urban core population centers of finance.

New York with half of New York City population gone? Goes purple.
Pennsylvania with half of Philadelphia population gone? Goes solid Red.
Georgia with half of Atlanta gone? Returns to solid Red.
DC with half the population of Metro gone? Causes Virginia to go solid Red.
With the exception of Vermont, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii..... this would be the result in state after state.

Liberals should rethink this one....... because it will be an overwhelming hit that disproportionately eliminates more of it's voters. In addition, while most population centers and major bases are destroyed and the losses unfathomable, the rebuild will lead to a decisively more Conservative population and a strengthened working middle class. Rebuilding after a nuclear war drives woke politics to a mere afterthought.

Lets get this straight though -- It is captain obvious that it is best for EVERYONE, the environment, and humanity around the world if we do NOT have nuclear war. Duh.

---

Like your thoughts, but I do not think there will be a lot of voting after nuclear war.

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.

---

Funny how people don't comprehend the effects, especially when we have perfect examples with Covid panic and the Snowpocalypse of 2020.

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.

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

Count me in the nuclear agnostic camp. I have no issues with an exchange of tactical nukes and believe that the strategic nukes are unlikely to ever be unleashed.

America wouldn't respond to the use of tactical nukes. Those weapons are basically area denial weapons and mostly irrelevant to modern warfare. On the climate front, there have been 800 nuclear weapons detonated in the atmosphere since Trinity and nuclear winter hasn't set in so I'm not going to get worked up over that hysteria.

C@LAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

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

---

If it includes DC as a target as well, I am on board with that.

---

If you want to eliminate 90% of the Dem voter base then that's how you do it. Every major urban center gone in a flash. Instant reset.

Would not likely happen and I'm not for mass nuclear death and devastation but, theoretically speaking…

But first, they should volunteer to fight in Ukraine

And no changing, your profile to say "I stand with Ukraine" is not the same thing.

During the 80s, there was a movement to push the governments of the USA and USSR to sign a treaty that both sides promised to not be the first to nuke the other. Reagan refused. He said that he wanted to reserve the right to nuke the Soviets first if they attack western European nations with conventional weapons. Libs everywhere freaked out and said "Reagan WANTS NUCLEAR WAR!!!!" Yet the Soviets internally said the equivalent of "oh s**t, we shouldn't mess with this guy." Reagan made us SAFER that day.

In fact, every president since including Obama kept the right to first use. Yet Biden promised during his campaign to adopt the "no first use" cause for the first time and his libs pals are pushing hard for it. So it might happen.


A lot of people on this board sound a lot like Biden and nothing like Reagan.

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

Or at least were screaming for Biden to initiate some military action.

The same folks who go through concealed carry class thinking de-escalation means shoot at the least provocation.

Quote:

---

With the exception of Vermont, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii...

---

Take out LA and CA is reddish purple. Take out SF and it's dark red.

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.

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 recollecting the accounts. I never want to live through it nor do I wish it on my worst enemies.

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.

---

And we don't teach it in schools anymore except that the evil US dropped atomic bombs on the peaceful Japanese.

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.

Have snacks and the last of the V8 interceptors.

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!

---

Leftists wanting to reduce world population.

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 ?