USA needs to attack Russian military in Ukraine

[Jumper1]

Apparently now the nuclear plant is in Russian hands, firefighters were allowed in to put the fire out which is now extinguished, apparently in some training room at least that is what they are saying. Anyhow with the plant in Russian hands it's a big bargaining chip for them in any negotiation. Not only that they can flick the switch at any time and deprive Ukraine of a lot of its electricity. I'm guessing they will do that as it sends a lot of Ukraine back to the dark ages, hinders their military, communication and Ukrainians lose morale.

Obviously power plants of any type  are strategic .
 Russian troops invadong Ukraine would try to control all of them.

There are.14.other nuclear plants,, their.are many coal.plant's

[Jumper1]

Of course.


I only focused on the Russian troops because for them it would be akin to committing suicide and would likely cause mass deaths in a very unpleasant way in  their own country.


I already assume they're not bothered how it would affect Ukraine and it's people.

It would be highly unlikely.to  kill the local.troops and incredibly unlikely to.cause mass deaths in Russia.

Have you been to a nuclear power plant?
Have you been to.one in a contested area?

Have you seen the basic security both of fencing and personal  at both? In both scenarios?
They do have security of course but  the number of personal devoted to that.during peace times,and , in conflict is minimum ,and that is because the threat is not that large.
The operators need a few minutes  time.to start the shut down process, that's it ,and that is what's calculated into the number of personal used in security.

Certainly this  military.attack is unprecedented ,so will draw IAEA attention and meetings.
any fire at a plant does ,and rndless studies and investigations, so certainly this situation  is far more involved.


A single old  armoured troop carrier could penetrate the defenses of any of the 15 nuclear plants in Ukraine.
They are not that secure,and have minimal fencing or barriers. .

Concerning? Sure

But far more from.the.strategic standpoint of cutting off the power to the population to force capitulation..

They won't ignore the coal power plants either if that is their objective.

[Jumper1]

It seems that the nuclear power plant is controlled by Russia now.  I would say it is indeed an escalation and demonstrates Russia is willing to escalate to whatever point they have to. 

Fathertime!

Escalation to control.the.power grid seems normal and frankly can't believe it.wasnt the second or third priority.

Communications,supply lines, electrical  power infrastructure.
Normally very very big priorities to control or disable.

Specific troops are trained for all of the above

[Jumper1]

Of course.


I only focused on the Russian troops because for them it would be akin to committing suicide and would likely cause mass deaths in a very unpleasant way in  their own country.


I already assume they're not bothered how it would affect Ukraine and it's people.

As far as suicide missions.
Way back,  both cold war adversaries had special forces trained with back pack.nuclear weapons. .
The usa trained in the north sea off the coast of Finland and certainly some spots in the region they.were not supposed to.be.
Ussr likely did similar.
All training exercises were known to be terminal to the SF individual.if actual.orders came through.
The guard at missle control room.isnt there just to.keep someone out.they are there to insure authenticated orders are carried out bybfire control personnel.
Its an insane world but has been for a looong time ,perhaps if people were more aware instead of simply choosing to not think.about uncomfortable daily scenarios and  topics ,things would deesculate on the large scale.

But apathy rules  except in direct crisis

[Admin]

So to win an argument you threaten with banning someone who disagrees with you? Or challenge you to make a stand by what you say we should commit to?

I think GQ made a valid enough point, I see nothing wrong with it nor offensive. If someone agrees with intervention then they should be willing to intervene themselves. It's available as an option here since they are allowing International War Tourists in for their pleasure, so anyone who thinks intervention is necessary can do so themselves and put their own lives by their stated position, seems fairest way to me.

Your response is unsurprising on many levels.

The dismissive answer to your first question is YES, but I will go on. The threat of banning is not about a disagreement or about winning an internet argument. As can be seen in other threads, and as I recently explained, I will engage to the point I am satisfied my ideas or perspective may be understood. Recognizing it is unlikely/impossible to "convince" anyone, but especially those who spout bloviated hypotheses as a foil to present their pre-determined opinions, I am happy to disengage and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

In the case of GQ, I feel certain he knew he was crossing a line. He knows there are many ways one can tangibly demonstrate support for Ukraine. He also knows, at least somewhat, of the demographic of this specific website. Most here are no longer at an age where physically doing battle would be an asset to Ukraine. Most here have family who depend on them. Most here have options to provide Ukraine support that are more beneficial than taking up arms themselves.

The use of that particular tactic was not sincere and I believe GQ knows that. As such, it crossed a line into trolling. That won't be tolerated. At least, once it is no longer useful as an object lesson it will no longer be tolerated.

[GQBlues]

As I said, you haven't a clue as to anything in my personal situation. You 'calling me out' is a childish antic that will find you separated from RWD if it persists.

At no time have I called you a hypocrite. I've said you frequently employ the logical fallacy of appealing to hypocrisy that distracts from the key issues. You do. It's a common tactic used by many in internet fora, but it lacks critical thinking. It's a diversion. You occasionally start down a path to make a good point, only to become distracted yourself with the exchange. When it becomes more important to you to win or get the final word or make a final point, instead of exchanging in healthy debate to encourage understanding, it has gone too far.

This latest tactic of challenging my conviction is a similar diversion. Worst of all, you know full well you are doing it and you do it anyway.


I'll tolerate it to a point, and then I won't. It is, after all, my forum.

Holy Smokes, Batman! I disagree with your accusatory post.

Here’s my first post in this thread, a response to a quoted content that I agreed with. 

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563289#msg563289

I then stated a supporting statement why my opposition to engagement that could result in a mutually assured destruction.

Second line in that post, I expanded the fallacy of involvement which could exponentially mired and multiply the destructive force of a nuclear war. Stating the obvious absence of both logic and rationale in getting involved in this silly war.

Third paragraph in that post directly asked you in your reference of finding a common narrative from what you heard from *Sean Penn* (of all people) that we’d *risk losing our souls* if the US somehow not get involved in this war? I asked you if you were serious because (considering who inspired you and what) - tempting fate, let's face it, readily subjecting billions of lives in a * mutually assured destruction* is without a doubt the dumbest thing ever posted in the internet.

You then immediately accused me of arguing and attacking you in your ensuing response.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563295#msg563295

In between (prior to your response above), I posted a commentary, in contribution to the message of the thread, broadly - with no specific person directed to, here:http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563297#msg563297

Pointing out the extreme absurdity of provoking a nuclear war as a counter point to the original post, not person, but with the message that said:

Many here are doing the cop-put wherein they claim not to be in favor of what Russia is doing...but then go on in plain or veiled terms to justify why Russia is doing it."

To which I countered in the post:

I can't believe the emotional battle cry many of you are raising. Hell, it's pretty darn impressive! I'll give you that. But man, I think it'll mean so much more if you folks walk the talk - take a one way ticket flight to Poland, cross the border, get in the que and grab yourselves a rifle, then get directions to the front line. Screaming, ranting and beating your virtual chest on a message board isn't serving your convictions well

That's when you took exception to the post and went on a tangent that *I* was appealing to hypocrisy.

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563306#msg563306

To summarize:
1. I didn't *argue* with you at any time.2. I didn’t *attack* you at any time.3. I didn’t *appeal to hypocrisy* at any time.

Now in your accusatory post, you allege *I* do it all the time. In addition, you slide and resort to authority to needlessly remind *me* you own this *message board* (you know, a venue supposedly to exchange ideas and opinion) and somehow imply I will banned because *I* allegedly keep doing what you accused me of doing in this thread.

Is this really making sense to you, Dan? Or something else is driving your true intent in this shindig?

In the end, an *appeal to hypocrisy* has to be in a body of an argument, to which there never was one, citing an inconsistency in the original thought or person.

For example:

Person A: "..Whenever I debate any subject, I have always been mindful of dealing only with factual premise. No sense debating anything with anyone who are not grounded with events or information not deemed and rooted in FACTS...."To which person B responds: "...Not true! You fully bought into the Russiahoax - hook, line and sinker in all your arguments for years!..."
There’s a very fine line between pointing out the credibility of a ‘debater’ or statement, to pointing out inconsistencies within that leads to an appeal to hypocrisy. Where you find the balance or relevance, is subjective.

If there's any underlying issue you'd like to address with me, openly or in PM, do it Dan. But accusing me of anything that either isn't true, or pointless - or both, is below you from what I've known you to be.

[Admin]

Holy Smokes, Batman! I disagree with your accusatory post.
Here’s my first post in this thread, a response to a quoted content that I agreed with. 
http://www.ru11s1sianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563289#msg563289
I then stated a supporting statement why my opposition to engagement that could result in a mutually assured destruction.
Second line in that post, I expanded the fallacy of involvement which could exponentially mired and multiply the destructive force of a nuclear war. Stating the obvious absence of both logic and rationale in getting involved in this silly war.
Third paragraph in that post directly asked you in your reference of finding a common narrative from what you heard from *Sean Penn* (of all people) that we’d *risk losing our souls* if the US somehow not get involved in this war? I asked you if you were serious because (considering who inspired you and what) - tempting fate, let's face it, readily subjecting billions of lives in a * mutually assured destruction* is without a doubt the dumbest thing ever posted in the internet.
You then immediately accused me of arguing and attacking you in your ensuing response.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563295#msg563295
In between (prior to your response above), I posted a commentary, in contribution to the message of the thread, broadly - with no specific person directed to, here:
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563297#msg563297
Pointing out the extreme absurdity of provoking a nuclear war as a counter point to the original post, not person, but with the message that said:

That's when you took exception to the post and went on a tangent that *I* was appealing to hypocrisy.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=25509.msg563306#msg563306
To summarize:
1. I didn't *argue* with you at any time.
2. I didn’t *attack* you at any time.
3. I didn’t *appeal to hypocrisy* at any time.
Now in your accusatory post, you allege *I* do it all the time. In addition, you slide and resort to authority to needlessly remind *me* you own this *message board* (you know, a venue supposedly to exchange ideas and opinion) and somehow imply I will banned because *I* allegedly keep doing what you accused me of doing in this thread.
Is this really making sense to you, Dan? Or something else is driving your true intent in this shindig?
In the end, an *appeal to hypocrisy* has to be in a body of an argument, to which there never was one, citing an inconsistency in the original thought or person.
For example:
Person A: "..Whenever I debate any subject, I have always been mindful of dealing only with factual premise. No sense debating anything with anyone who are not grounded with events or information not deemed and rooted in FACTS...."
To which person B responds: "...Not true! You fully bought into the Russiahoax hook, line and sinker in all your arguments for years!..."
There’s a very fine line between pointing out the credibility of a ‘debater’ or statement, to pointing out inconsistencies within that leads to an appeal to hypocrisy. Where you find the balance or relevance, is subjective.
If there's any underlying issue you'd like to address with me, openly or in PM, do it Dan. But accusing me of anything that either isn't true, or pointless - or both, is below you from what I've known you to be.

GQ, becoming apoplectic is unhelpful.

[GQBlues]

GQ, becoming apoplectic is unhelpful.

The invitation remains open.

[Boethius]

It seems that the nuclear power plant is controlled by Russia now.  I would say it is indeed an escalation and demonstrates Russia is willing to escalate to whatever point they have to. 

Fathertime!

Yes, but they need Ukrainian firefighters to stabilize the plant.

[Chelseaboy]

Here's a thought.


If Russia attacks and blows up a Nuclear power station and radiation is released into the atmosphere and starts killing people in one of the neighbouring NATO countries,that could well be construed as an act of war against NATO.


Would GQBlues then go and fight in a war for his family against the terrorist nation Russia,as he suggests others on here do ?