Its still not clear it was sunk, but there is this.
Russia posted these photos but some are saying its not the same ship.I think it only suffered a bit of damage but still sailing for now.
ROTFLMFAO!!!! If Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, America/NATO will do EXACTLY nothing.
You're really losing it, jc.ROTFLMFAO!!!! If Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, America/NATO will do EXACTLY nothing.
Under what circumstances, pray tell, would NATO "retaliate " in kind, if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?????You're really losing it, jc.
Is it the concussion?
Not really a counter-point as "never get defeated on the battlefield" is not a measure of seizing objectives, and also wrong. Battle of FSB Ripcord, Battle of LZ Albany, Operation Lam Son 719, etc. The US was defeated on the battlefield. They won every MAJOR engagement, sure. But they were definitely defeated on the battlefield a few times. But again, if those engagements don't achieve your objectives, you fail.They were never defeated on the battlefield.
I'm not going to get into a debate about what certain people may or may not have wanted as it's irrelevant to the topic. The fact is that the US lost Vietnam and I'm not sure why Canadians are arguing so hard to protect fragile American egos. Even for Americans, the important thing is to learn from your losses which they absolutely did and is the main reason why they haven't lost, even in similar asymmetric warfare, since.What the war hawks really wanted to do was nuke Hanoi. If the US wanted, it could have totally destroyed NVN the way a 240 lb steroid psycho gym rat asshole beats a 100 lb 12 year old kid to death over a stolen candy bar.
If the ship is back in port then why is it that on airtracker Forte10 is still surveying the attack area at 1:21 pm Mar 26.Russia posted these photos but some are saying its not the same ship.
Its still unclear.
1: South VIetnam fell because the Americans lost interest.Sure. But they left without accomplishing any objectives. That's a loss.
That was my point. Vietnam was a test of a new American theory: limited warfare. A hybrid maneuver/attrition strategy. It failed, they lost, but they learned from it. Even against a conventional army it fails. That was played out in wargames. As an operational art, it's an unmitigated disaster.
This was a bigger one.I know. They really haven't lost any wars - mainly because they were always a lot bigger than their opponents. Custer was the best I could come up with.
ROTFLMFAO!!!! If Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, America/NATO will do EXACTLY nothing.
You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?Under what circumstances, pray tell, would NATO "retaliate " in kind, if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?????
Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation.You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?
"b) General Petraeus : "Any use of tactical nukes, the US would use conventional weapons to destroy every Russian military asset including the Black Sea fleet" Russia loses quicker if it uses nukes"
I guess this is where you respond with ROTFLMFAO like some sort of manic mentally ill person for establishing both your lack of understanding and your inability to read... because being shown up is just so funny???
Just looking forward to the day when you react to something honestly and show some self awareness that you are out of your depth.
Fact, the US can respond to nukes, not in kind,
2: At least one US general has explained how in a post above your comments.
An adult would admit they were wrong/mispoke, a child would respond with laughter.
If the ship is back in port then why is it that on airtracker Forte10 is still surveying the attack area at 1:21 pm Mar 26.
This morning there was a Turkish helicopter in the area as well.
View attachment 235706
Now overlay the above with the below and tell me why there would be (identified by the blue dots and blue ship shape) 7 tugs and special craft in the area of the strike due North of Zonguldak as well.
View attachment 235707
Really? ROTFLMFAO!!!! America would attack Russia? Conventional weapons or not, that will kick off WW3 that can only end one way. Good explanation.![]()
![]()
![]()
You do know that one can do something to retaliate without using nukes right?
"b) General Petraeus : "Any use of tactical nukes, the US would use conventional weapons to destroy every Russian military asset including the Black Sea fleet" Russia loses quicker if it uses nukes"
I guess this is where you respond with ROTFLMFAO like some sort of manic mentally ill person for establishing both your lack of understanding and your inability to read... because being shown up is just so funny???
Just looking forward to the day when you react to something honestly and show some self awareness that you are out of your depth.
Fact, the US can respond to nukes, not in kind,
2: At least one US general has explained how in a post above your comments.
An adult would admit they were wrong/mispoke, a child would respond with laughter.
Certain about what? I asked a simple question and got a mindless Petraeus quote from another poster.You really should get in touch with some country's military and offer them your astute, always certain, analysis.
And when they tell you that only fools are certain, you can tell them you are certain you are no fool.