Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
There is always option 4 of launching a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia and try to disarm them as much as possible. Russia is essentially using a game of chicken against the world to launch an imperial war against a country that he considered much weaker. Why wait for Russia to use nukes?

The advantages of a pre-emptive nuclear attack:
  • A first strike by NATO will take a lot more Russian nukes out of commission than if we wait for a shooting war against Russia.
  • The use of jamming and sabotage would be much more effective in an offensive strike than in a defensive capacity.
  • If Russia's nuclear stockpile is anything like their regular military hardware, then it is probably in shambles, and we could destroy a lot of it before it can be made to be useful.
I am not trying to downplay just how horrific a nuclear war would be, but having an unstable leader in charge of the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons is an untenable situation. If there is a chance that we can take away that nuclear stockpile before any of it can be effectively used, we should take it, even if it means poisoning large swaths of Russia. If it were me, I would consider striking first and making sure the strike is so devastating that Russia wouldn't be able to build another nuke for decades.
Now I want to be clear I know your just hypothesizing. So I'm not saying that your supporting I understand your just letting this option just play out as a discussion

I'm still PRAYING that it NEVER has to come to a scenario like you just mentioned. The only comfort I have is where I live in Texas it is so heavily military it would be a prime target I wouldn't really even know what hit me. It would be over before I knew it. I wouldn't have to be one of the few unfortunate to survive
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
One large, intense strike on Russian forces would likely cause them to lose the will to fight, especially if it's done in a way that they can see AND identify the aircraft as Western, from many places. They're already running from Ukrainian forces and haven't seen much about aircraft, but if Putin loses more forces because of discontent, he loses the war unless he has people who are as crazy and stupid as he is in his corner. His draft isn't working, he isn't paying them and the families are suffering.

Best thing for all is for him to eat a pill, Cynaide, or otherwise. Maybe someone could sneak up behind him and implant one of those little Ricin pellets in his leg.

I'm amazed that so many Russians have bought the BS Putin and The Party spew.
Yeah I agree I'd rather see a possible strike against Putin himself like Obama did against Bin Laden as impossible as it may be then the nuclear option presented above. Oh well the insanity of this makes my head hurt

I'm not starting my Sunday off from work dwelling on sh$t I literally have no control over Lol.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I love you brother but what's insane to me is somehow people have forgotten the insanity of nuclear war. What your downplaying is simply that nuclear war is completely unwinnable for the human race. Not just the countries involved.

Even if you did launch a first preemptive strike against Russia they still would have enough of a response capability to end up destroying the entire planet. Most definitely the country that attacked them. Even if they only attacked that one country in retaliation the fallout to the environment would be catastrophic to the rest of the world.

I'd go into more detail on why what you just advocated for is complete insanity but if someone actually is crazy enough to try what you just stated it would be the end of humanity so what is the point.

The only reason Putin as unstable as he is still hasn't completely gone off his rocker is because even he still recognizes this.

Like I said I'm done even thinking about this it's so stupid. If we as a human race resort to nuclear war we don't deserve to be here anymore. Let something else evolve after what's left and have its chance.
There is the mutually assured destruction doctrine, of course, but what if there was a chance to take out the vast bulk of Russia's nuclear arsenal before they could retaliate? It has been an assumption that both sides would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange, but Russia is such a basket case that I would not be surprised if that wasn't necessarily the case anymore. And how much are you willing to let Putin get away with by holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons? Where is the redline? Would it be a nuke on Kyiv? Or do we have to wait until he starts nuking NATO members?

Let's put it another way: if you could press a button to end the war on Ukraine as well as any possible Russian aggression for the next century thereby ensuring safety for your family from a nuclear attack by Russia, and the cost was nuking Russian missile silos, bomber bases, nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and sinking every Russian nuclear-armed submarine, would you do it?
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
There is the mutually assured destruction doctrine, of course, but what if there was a chance to take out the vast bulk of Russia's nuclear arsenal before they could retaliate? It has been an assumption that both sides would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange, but Russia is such a basket case that I would not be surprised if that wasn't necessarily the case anymore. And how much are you willing to let Putin get away with by holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons? Where is the redline? Would it be a nuke on Kyiv? Or do we have to wait until he starts nuking NATO members?

Let's put it another way: if you could press a button to end the war on Ukraine as well as any possible Russian aggression for the next century thereby ensuring safety for your family from a nuclear attack by Russia, and the cost was nuking Russian missile silos, bomber bases, nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and sinking every Russian nuclear-armed submarine, would you do it?
Souds good but I for one don't think it would be that easy ..........
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
There is the mutually assured destruction doctrine, of course, but what if there was a chance to take out the vast bulk of Russia's nuclear arsenal before they could retaliate? It has been an assumption that both sides would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange, but Russia is such a basket case that I would not be surprised if that wasn't necessarily the case anymore. And how much are you willing to let Putin get away with by holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons? Where is the redline? Would it be a nuke on Kyiv? Or do we have to wait until he starts nuking NATO members?
What do you mean by the "vast bulk"? Russia has about 4 500 strategic nuclear war heads, and assume that in one fell swoop instantly destroyed, say, 95% of them (that is the "vast bulk"?). That leaves around 220 strategic war heads for Russia to launch at targets and those war heads will cause many deaths at detonation, and of course, all the deaths that follows from radiation and tertiary causes like famine and other illnesses.

Other than the strategic nuclear war heads there are also the lower yields one that they call "tactical". They also, to put it mildly, causes much damage and death. Russia has a couple of thousand of them.

We here in Europe will be so thankful for all the radiation drifting over us from the one fell swoop of destroying the "vast bulk" of Russian nuclear war heads, those that survives the Russian retaliation, that is.


1665335967572.png


Let's put it another way: if you could press a button to end the war on Ukraine as well as any possible Russian aggression for the next century thereby ensuring safety for your family from a nuclear attack by Russia, and the cost was nuking Russian missile silos, bomber bases, nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and sinking every Russian nuclear-armed submarine, would you do it?
This sounds like the following scenario: What if you could go back in time and kill baby Adolf Hitler, would you do it to save the world from WWII? Sadly, a few million other will die as well, but that is the price.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I love you brother but what's insane to me is somehow people have forgotten the insanity of nuclear war. What your downplaying is simply that nuclear war is completely unwinnable for the human race. Not just the countries involved.

Even if you did launch a first preemptive strike against Russia they still would have enough of a response capability to end up destroying the entire planet. Most definitely the country that attacked them. Even if they only attacked that one country in retaliation the fallout to the environment would be catastrophic to the rest of the world.

I'd go into more detail on why what you just advocated for is complete insanity but if someone actually is crazy enough to try what you just stated it would be the end of humanity so what is the point.

The only reason Putin as unstable as he is still hasn't completely gone off his rocker is because even he still recognizes this.

Like I said I'm done even thinking about this it's so stupid. If we as a human race resort to nuclear war we don't deserve to be here anymore. Let something else evolve after what's left and have its chance.
How do you mean 'destroy', totally, or making it unusable? While they both apply, I'm not sure they have the range and capability to to the first- I would hope the whereabouts of their subs is known to most of the allied navies, it would take a long time and lots of hallucinations to think their other naval vessels could move quickly enough that reaching launch positions before detection would be possible, IMO.

I wonder how accurate this is.....

 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Yeah I agree I'd rather see a possible strike against Putin himself like Obama did against Bin Laden as impossible as it may be then the nuclear option presented above. Oh well the insanity of this makes my head hurt

I'm not starting my Sunday off from work dwelling on sh$t I literally have no control over Lol.
If someone is paid enough, I don't think this would necessarily have to be done by someone from outside of Russia.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
This is such an important question I had to chew on it a little more. If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine I see 3 options for the West.

1: increase sanctions cap his oil. Send more money and weapons to Ukraine.

2: attack and destroy with Nato all Russian military operating in Ukraine and in that region. Not a direct attack on Russia itself. Secondary attack but with the hope it would deter Russia from taking any further nuclear action.

3: deploy a tactical nuke on Russian forces in the region of Ukraine. Once again sending a message of deterence on future nuclear action by Putin.

Obviously the West would like to avoid options 2 or 3 but may be put in a tough position of only option 1 if they feel that shows weakness in contrast to Putin taking such a devastating and horrific action against the people of Ukraine by using tactical nukes against them.
A delayed response to Danzilla31's post …

Options 2 and 3 seem like bad ideas. And, getting directly involved in a hot war with Russia isn't likely to happen with the present White House occupants.

I strongly favor option #1 – Send more money and weapons to Ukraine. We're already doing that now. Ukraine is putting those weapons to good use. And, Russia is doing it's part by getting into a war they couldn't afford to begin, much less pursue and win.

To understand Russia & Putin, we have to re-learn some poorly remembered lessons from the Cold War: How to stop thinking like an optimistic American and see the world through Russian eyes. They’re extremely paranoid and have great trouble cooperating with others, even if they’d benefit from cooperating. To illustrate, I’m paraphrasing a Russian proverb quoted in a book, Red Notice by Bill Browder.
One day a poor villager happens upon a magic fish. It could talk. The fish says it will grant him a single wish. Overjoyed, the villager weighs his options: “Maybe a castle? Or even better, a thousand bars of gold? Why not a ship to sail the world?” As the villager is about to make his decision, the fish interrupts to say there is one important caveat: whatever the villager gets, his neighbor will get two of the same. Without skipping a beat, the villager says, “In that case, please poke one of my eyes out.”

The moral is simple: Russians will gladly – gleefully – sacrifice their own success to screw their neighbor. This pessimism infects all their thinking. When first exposed to American optimism, they take offense at our confidence, claiming we are both arrogant and naïve about the ways of the world.
The Russians do seem to be slowly poking their own eyes out. The problem is a lot of dead Ukrainians, not to mention dead Russians. I think Putin believes he can limit damage to the Russian elites by hiring/drafting soldiers so public resistance to this dumb war is slow to coalesce. That doesn't seem to be working as Putin imagined. So now he threatens to use nukes. Don't fall for it. It's a sign he's aware of his failure.

Getting action from NATO can seem like herding kittens. Russia & Putin have helped with that as well. Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. I suspect NATO can outlast Putin & his Moscow supporters if we keep can keep all those kittens herded. I am much more confident that Biden and his State & Defense Departments can accomplish this than I ever was with the previous administration.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
A delayed response to Danzilla31's post …

Options 2 and 3 seem like bad ideas. And, getting directly involved in a hot war with Russia isn't likely to happen with the present White House occupants.

I strongly favor option #1 – Send more money and weapons to Ukraine. We're already doing that now. Ukraine is putting those weapons to good use. And Russia is doing it's part by getting into a war they couldn't afford to pursue, much less win.

To understand Russia & Putin, we have to re-learn some poorly remembered lessons from the Cold War: How to stop thinking like an optimistic American and see the world through Russian eyes. They’re extremely paranoid and have great trouble cooperating with others, even if they’d benefit from cooperating. To illustrate, I’m paraphrasing a Russian proverb quoted in a book, Red Notice by Bill Browder.

The Russians do seem to be slowly poking their own eyes out. The problem is a lot of dead Ukrainians, not to mention dead Russians. I think Putin believes he can limit damage to the Russian elites by hiring/drafting soldiers so public resistance to this dumb war is slow to coalesce. That doesn't seem to be working as Putin imagined. So now he threatens to use nukes. Don't fall for it. It's a sign he's aware of his failure.

Getting action from NATO can seem like herding kittens. Russia & Putin have helped with that as well. Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. I suspect NATO can outlast Putin & his Moscow supporters if we keep can keep all those kittens herded. I am much more confident that Biden and his State & Defense Departments can accomplish this than I ever was with the previous administration.
But, but, but Biden said "I want to be very clear about this. The United States will never, never never recognise Russia's claims on Ukraine sovereign territory.


Maybe someone could send a strongly-worded letter to Putin.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
There is the mutually assured destruction doctrine, of course, but what if there was a chance to take out the vast bulk of Russia's nuclear arsenal before they could retaliate? It has been an assumption that both sides would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange, but Russia is such a basket case that I would not be surprised if that wasn't necessarily the case anymore. And how much are you willing to let Putin get away with by holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons? Where is the redline? Would it be a nuke on Kyiv? Or do we have to wait until he starts nuking NATO members?

Let's put it another way: if you could press a button to end the war on Ukraine as well as any possible Russian aggression for the next century thereby ensuring safety for your family from a nuclear attack by Russia, and the cost was nuking Russian missile silos, bomber bases, nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and sinking every Russian nuclear-armed submarine, would you do it?
One Russian sub can launch 100 nuclear warheads in one salvo.

What if the first strike “only” destroy all land based nuclear ballistic missiles, all air launched nuclear missiles, all surface ships carrying nuclear warheads, and 9 out of 10 Russian subs carrying nuclear weapons?

I’m not sure anyone knows for sure what the environmental effect of a massive nuclear strike would be, but it could set off numerous fires, dumping massive amounts of soot into the atmosphere, leading to global cooling and a massive disruption of global food supplies.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
A delayed response to Danzilla31's post …

Options 2 and 3 seem like bad ideas. And, getting directly involved in a hot war with Russia isn't likely to happen with the present White House occupants.

I strongly favor option #1 – Send more money and weapons to Ukraine. We're already doing that now. Ukraine is putting those weapons to good use. And, Russia is doing it's part by getting into a war they couldn't afford to begin, much less pursue and win.

To understand Russia & Putin, we have to re-learn some poorly remembered lessons from the Cold War: How to stop thinking like an optimistic American and see the world through Russian eyes. They’re extremely paranoid and have great trouble cooperating with others, even if they’d benefit from cooperating. To illustrate, I’m paraphrasing a Russian proverb quoted in a book, Red Notice by Bill Browder.

The Russians do seem to be slowly poking their own eyes out. The problem is a lot of dead Ukrainians, not to mention dead Russians. I think Putin believes he can limit damage to the Russian elites by hiring/drafting soldiers so public resistance to this dumb war is slow to coalesce. That doesn't seem to be working as Putin imagined. So now he threatens to use nukes. Don't fall for it. It's a sign he's aware of his failure.

Getting action from NATO can seem like herding kittens. Russia & Putin have helped with that as well. Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. I suspect NATO can outlast Putin & his Moscow supporters if we keep can keep all those kittens herded. I am much more confident that Biden and his State & Defense Departments can accomplish this than I ever was with the previous administration.
Yeah great input Swerd and I think your right option 1 is the best option. Anything else should be last resort no choice type of scenarios.

Thank you for your feedback good points on Russian mentality and how it differs from the way we look at things.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
There is the mutually assured destruction doctrine, of course, but what if there was a chance to take out the vast bulk of Russia's nuclear arsenal before they could retaliate? It has been an assumption that both sides would be annihilated in a nuclear exchange, but Russia is such a basket case that I would not be surprised if that wasn't necessarily the case anymore. And how much are you willing to let Putin get away with by holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons? Where is the redline? Would it be a nuke on Kyiv? Or do we have to wait until he starts nuking NATO members?

Let's put it another way: if you could press a button to end the war on Ukraine as well as any possible Russian aggression for the next century thereby ensuring safety for your family from a nuclear attack by Russia, and the cost was nuking Russian missile silos, bomber bases, nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities and sinking every Russian nuclear-armed submarine, would you do it?
I just couldn't do that. Personally I couldn't

Reason 1 there is no way you could guarantee you could get them all. You would have to guarantee a 100% strike and there's no way that is possible. If you destroyed 90% of theyre nuclear capacity and 10% was left that's still enough to destroy everything on this entire planet. Just one sub still left as someone pointed out is 100 nukes. Just 1. And then it's game over for everyone.

Reason 2: I could not live with the massive amounts of life that would cost. Russian civilians are just like us. I guarantee you most of them don't want this. All those innocent children women and men. Plus Ukraine is right next to them. They would suffer incalculable losses due to the fallout. I personally could not live with myself.

Reason 3 even striking Russia only could do irreparable damage to the planets environment. And that's just if we only limited it to them.

To your point of holding the world hostage with nukes I feel every nation that has nuclear weapons is doing that very same thing. Putin appears unstable but I haven't made up my mind if he really is that unstable or if he's like Swerd said just trying to save face. And throwing nuclear threats out there as a smokescreen to hide the fact that he's losing and overextended in this war.

No for me nuclear war is truly an unwinnable war and should only be thought of until the last second as a no choice scenario. I couldn't do that I couldn't take that risk. Until I had no choice left.

War Games said it best for me. The only winning move is not to play.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
To your point of holding the world hostage with nukes I feel every nation that has nuclear weapons is doing that very same thing.
I agree with most of what you posted, but I respectfully disagree with regards to every nation with nukes “doing that very same thing.”

Every country with nukes states or implies that they would use nukes if the existence of the country is at stake. This is a defensive position.

Putin violated international law and invaded Ukraine, then implied he would use nukes if the west helps Ukraine kick Russia out. Basically, he’s saying “I’m going to keep taking whatever territory I believe Russia is entitled to, and I’ll use nukes if anyone tries to stop me.” If he succeeds in Ukraine it’s hard to see what would stop him.

Putin’s aggressive use of conventional weapons to invade Ukraine coupled with a threat of nukes to retain the territory strikes me as different than the actions of the other nuke countries (at least so far, who knows what North Korea will do)
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
I agree with most of what you posted, but I respectfully disagree with regards to every nation with nukes “doing that very same thing.”

Every country with nukes states or implies that they would use nukes if the existence of the country is at stake. This is a defensive position.

Putin violated international law and invaded Ukraine, then implied he would use nukes if the west helps Ukraine kick Russia out. Basically, he’s saying “I’m going to keep taking whatever territory I believe Russia is entitled to, and I’ll use nukes if anyone tries to stop me.” If he succeeds in Ukraine it’s hard to see what would stop him.

Putin’s aggressive use of conventional weapons to invade Ukraine coupled with a threat of nukes to retain the territory strikes me as different than the actions of the other nuke countries (at least so far, who knows what North Korea will do)
That's a very good point. Putin's position is different then the others countries positions I agree with your breakdown on that.
 
Last edited:
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
I agree with most of what you posted, but I respectfully disagree with regards to every nation with nukes “doing that very same thing.”

Every country with nukes states or implies that they would use nukes if the existence of the country is at stake. This is a defensive position.

Putin violated international law and invaded Ukraine, then implied he would use nukes if the west helps Ukraine kick Russia out. Basically, he’s saying “I’m going to keep taking whatever territory I believe Russia is entitled to, and I’ll use nukes if anyone tries to stop me.” If he succeeds in Ukraine it’s hard to see what would stop him.

Putin’s aggressive use of conventional weapons to invade Ukraine coupled with a threat of nukes to retain the territory strikes me as different than the actions of the other nuke countries (at least so far, who knows what North Korea will do)
I guess I feel like maybe the way I see it after hearing your viewpoint is every country that has them uses them as a type of defensive stalemate. Where Putin has shown in Ukraine as you pointed out to act any way he wants as an unprovoked aggressor then tries to use the threat of nukes like a club to keep everyone else out of his way.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
One Russian sub can launch 100 nuclear warheads in one salvo.

What if the first strike “only” destroy all land based nuclear ballistic missiles, all air launched nuclear missiles, all surface ships carrying nuclear warheads, and 9 out of 10 Russian subs carrying nuclear weapons?

I’m not sure anyone knows for sure what the environmental effect of a massive nuclear strike would be, but it could set off numerous fires, dumping massive amounts of soot into the atmosphere, leading to global cooling and a massive disruption of global food supplies.
You're describing Nuclear Winter-


We have had reductions in average global temperature from events like Mount Pinatubo and while there are arguments for/against it, Kilauea has put a lot of matter into the atmosphere that MUST have contributed i n light of the fact that it has been active for almost all of the last 40 years.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Given that Russia keeps vetoing UN Security Council resolutions condemning Russia's actions, I propose kicking Russia off the Security Council. Ah yes, how does one go about this given that there is no procedure for doing so in the UN charter? Simple. Western countries resign en masse from the existing UN and create a new UN in which Russia is not on the Security Council.

Problem solved.


I realize there's almost no chance this will actually happen, but I see no other solution. Russia is making a mockery of Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter:

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are
  1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
  2. All Members, in order to ensure, to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
  3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
  5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.


 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Given that Russia keeps vetoing UN Security Council resolutions condemning Russia's actions, I propose kicking Russia off the Security Council. Ah yes, how does one go about this given that there is no procedure for doing so in the UN charter? Simple. Western countries resign en masse from the existing UN and create a new UN in which Russia is not on the Security Council.

Problem solved.


I realize there's almost no chance this will actually happen, but I see no other solution. Russia is making a mockery of Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter:

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are
  1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
  2. All Members, in order to ensure, to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
  3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
  5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.


Kick out China too as it has no problem putting millions of Muslims in concentration camps, as well as other brutal repressions, to genocide a minority group. China is a brutal genocidal totalitarian state.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top