(09-10-2023, 05:25 AM)Grace Wrote:(09-10-2023, 12:18 AM)Ninurta Wrote: I'm not disputing that the US and NATO regularly make illegal attacks on parties that have presented no threat to them - that's one of the reasons I think NATO should be disbanded. They have outlived their remit when the Soviet Union collapsed, and every since then, they've just found smaller countries to pick on and attack unprovoked, so it's past time to dissolve them, I'm just wondering when they have ever commited an unprovoked attack against RUSSIA, to warrant the use of the phrase "existential threat" against NATO.
Bosnia, Ksovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, etc, while all suffering illegal attacks from the US and NATO, are not Russia. When did NATO become an existential threat against Russia?
.
When did they become an existential threat to Russia?
Now ..... now.
Have you missed these last few years? The Nation State versus Globalisation models of government... Russia getting the brunt of the globalists hate and ire, just as Trump got it here.
The globalists are making a huge power play right now, and Russia is in their cross hairs... I see it as overtly threatening to the existence of Russia AS IT IS RUN now.
And that's what is "existential" about it. Just like we see it as "existential" to loose our constitutional rights and freedoms here. It's existential to their way of life to become another vassal state to the NWO.
I can see what you're saying, but that still doesn't make the US an existential threat against Russia. It makes the globalists an existential threat, but not the US, nor even NATO. Per your own observation, WE are under the very same existential threat, so it would make more sense to ally with us against the common enemy than it would make to nuke the crap out of a potential ally in the fight, thereby weakening one's own position in the long run.
Threatening the US is threatening the wrong target in that scenario.
======================
Here is a fun video. It's speculative musings on Russian targeting. It makes some fundamentally wrong assumptions in order to maximize and sensationalize the presumed outcome, but the specific targeting speculations are fairly accurate - they just try to ramp things up for a worst-case scenario.
For example, they appear to assume every explosion will be a ground burst for maximum fireball damage and radiation AND an air burst for maximum destruction radius. It can't be both, but who am I to ruin a good scare video?
They also used that old hackneyed scare tactic of "what if they dropped a Tsar Bomba on New York?", same as the fear porn purveyors back in the '80's did to college kids with "what if they dropped a 100 MT bomb on the nearest city to YOU?", while failing to mention that there was no such thing as a 100 MT bomb, just like there is no more Tsar Bomba.
"What ifs" are fun, especially when they fail to mention that they cannot happen and it's all just fear porn.
Even at the maximum fear setting, I was shocked to hear them admit that a full third of the US population would be entirely untouched by either the explosions or even the fallout from such an exchange. You have to listen closely, but they admit that very thing in the middle of all the fear porn.
They may be employing a similar tactic to what my teachers did back when I was in school, and we had to practice all those drills where you hide under your desk against the 'splosion and face away from the windows against the flash... and we had to watch all those "scary" movies about the results of the Hirishima and Nagasaki nukes. Our teachers would talk the movies up about how "hell on Earth" , grotie, and just plain scary they were, but the movies were never as bad as they were talked up to be. I asked a teacher why they did that to us once, and he said "because if you are over-prepared, then the shock to your system is less when you see the actual movies."
Did you know: at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ONLY times nukes have ever been deployed for realz, there was NO detectable fallout at all, in either case? At Nagasaki, there was no firestorm, either. Fallout and firestorms are not a given for nuclear explosions. In most cases, if done right, there will be no appreciable fallout at all. That is because the fireball must make contact with the ground if there is to be any fallout generated, but at explosion heights that low, the blast radius is minimized, the destruction circle smaller, less destruction at the flash point, because more energy is being channeled into the ground and into generating fallout. The only time surface bursts like that are warranted is when one is trying to bust missile silos, which is a vast minority of the potential targets. The rest of the time, you want a wider path of destruction, so you have to pop the egg at a height too great to generate appreciable fallout.
Like at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
.