I don't because I'm fully aware of that. You're the one that need to update your calculus because nuclear subs were already there before the Cuba missile crisis. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx#:~:text=Work%20on%20nuclear%20marine%20propulsion,put%20to%20sea%20in%201955.



Nuclear subs were already there and the Cuba missile crisis almost resulted in WW3.

Stating that a Russia-Mexico pact with Russian nukes right at the border wouldn't be an issue is ridiculous, lol. But you know that, if you don't you're genuinely clueless.

Nuclear POWERED subs are very different than nuclear ARMED submarines. That's why I always used the word ARMED. The first SLBMs didn't come about until the 60s (before the Cuban missile crisis), but they weren't particularly sophisticated. SLBM technology improved significantly post-Cuban missile crisis and so did submarine design to avoid detection.

The only issue with Russia placing nuclear missiles in Mexico is pride. America treating it's neighbor so poorly that they would militarily align with an adversary would be a COLOSSAL embarrassment. We would not be in any more or less danger though because nothing changes about the military situation. Fundamentally, that's what the Russian invasion of Ukraine is about: pride. Sweden and Finland joining NATO is more of a security threat than Ukraine joining NATO but the Russians don't seem to care that much. The reason? They are REALLY upset that they lost a puppet state to European influence and that matters more than any sort of military threat. But you know that, if you don't you're genuinely clueless.

Wrong again chump. The Soviets had nuclear armed subs in the water during the Cuban missile crisis each carrying a long range 15KT nuclear torpedo. Which almost lead to catastrophe when they were hunted by US surface vessels during the blockade.

Secondly the Russians don't care so much about Sweden nor Finland cuz they don't have an important naval base there. They care about Ukraine becoming a NATO member because of Sevastopol how come you still don't get that.

This aint about pride you fool and I'd get my facts correct if I were you before raging on and showing everyone out here how genuinely clueless you are

Reread what I said lol. I already informed you that SLBMs existed BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis. You know what the word 'before' means, right? The issue with SLBMs at the time is that they weren't as sophisticated and weren't on parity with other forms of nuclear weapons. 15 kT is tiny compared to what land based launchers were capable of at the time. SLBMs improved DRASTICALLY over the years post Cuban missile crisis. They are literally the most important part of the nuclear triad.

How can you say that Russia doesn't have naval bases that would be affected by Sweden and Finland in NATO? You're aware of the existence of the Baltic Fleet, right? You're aware of the naval bases in St Petersburg and Kaliningrad, right? The entire Baltic sea is surrounded by NATO countries now. 5D chess move by Russia there.

I haven't discounted the importance of Sevastopal and told you in the other thread that Crimea is almost certainly off the table. That doesn't justify the invasion in 2022 because, you know, Crimea was annexed. Ukraine had no plans to get it back.

If you don't think this is about pride, I'm not sure how I can help you. It's obvious to anyone whose been paying attention and it's not really a debate. For the record, I speak Russian. My wife was born there and her family is full of diplomats, high ranking military officials, professors, etc. I understand the Russian mindset much more than you think.

What are you babbling on about, lol. Nuclear tipped torpedoes =//= SLBMs

NATO countries affecting Russian bases =//= Russia losing a base falling into NATO hands completely by NATO taking over a former Soviet republic. None of that applies to Sweden/Finland it's EU can't you understand any of this shit???

Imagine Cuba having an important US naval base falling into Soviet hands like that. The whole Western world would have gone ballistic if that were the case, lol. You are wrong and worse you have completely zero awareness that there are two sides to a story and Russian react the same way as we do.

Bragging that you speak Russian doesn't change anything just shows you're desperate to somehow save face cuz you've been torn to bits here. Gl with your Russian wife, high ranking Russian agents in your family etc, lol. When is your next holiday to Moscow?

What exactly are you confused about? I think I've been pretty precise and you're missing the point here. There's a fundamental difference between a national security threat and a nation needing to save face. We would not react in a similar way to the Cuban Missile Crisis because the game is completely different now. You keep making up scenarios that fail the basic smell test and defy logic/reason because you're trying to justify Russia's actions.

I don't need to imagine the bold lol. What do you think Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is? Again, Sevastopol was not in any danger of being lost prior to February. It still isn't because Ukraine doesn't have the capability to take back Crimea. You know it, I know it, Russia knows it, and Ukraine knows it. Again, it boils down to Russian pride. I think a more interesting question is what's more embarrassing: Ukraine no longer being Russia's puppet or Russia's military struggles in Ukraine. I'd strongly argue the latter.

I brought up my connection to Russia because I'm what you call "radnoy." I understand the mindset and know how to sift out the bullshit propaganda to understand the root of their issues. I don't need to save face because the experts agree with me and the conspiracy theorists/Russian shills agree with you. But hey, if you want to pretend you're "tearing me to pieces," that's fine by me. It doesn't really change the facts on the ground.

It's perfectly clear to anyone here that the Sweden/Finland situation is completely different cuz Sevastopol aint located in any of those two countries. You posting a wall of text in an effort to mask your mistake doesn't work. I'll simply point it out once again. EZd

BTW I now get why you bought that javelin missile on the black market, to which Russian agent family member did you pass it on?

This post was edited by Djunior on Jul 22 2022 12:24pm

It's clear that you have reading comprehension issues so I'll speak in fewer sentences.

Yes or no question: Was Sevastopol in danger of falling in Ukrainian or NATO hands after the annexation of Crimea?

So you decided your only way out of your Sweden/Finland mistake is to offer me a yes/no question set up in a way that would make me look bad?

Again it's clear you're not smart enough, let me just put it mildly

If the rest of Ukraine (without Crimea and DPR/LPR) would join NATO, the situation would suddenly be Ukraine being a member of an alliance that possesses a shit-ton of nukes and Ukraine as a member no doubt would be pressing NATO to take action against Russia to take back the lost territories as they already do without even being a member.

Further escalation would be a real possibility leading to all-out war between NATO and Russia. If NATO wins the war then yes, Sevastopol would be in danger of falling into NATO hands.

This is in theory as NATO doesn't take new members that are at war but it could still happen when the war is over if Ukraine receives membership after the war and then tries to get the lost territories back again.

This post was edited by Djunior on Jul 22 2022 12:49pm

There was no mistake on my end. Based on your response, you failed to understand the argument.

Anyway, that was a very long winded way of saying "no" to my question. The previous and current state of affairs simply doesn't support your wild scenario from happening. But hey, at least we're making progress!