Intersting addition to the scheme of things

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Nothing to worry about but it's interesting anyway (I hope)

The Russian Defense Ministry is preparing to send warships to the Arabian Sea, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reports.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Don't discount our failing relationship with Russia. They, in the long run, are a wildcard we don't want out of our hands.
 
You see failing & I see improving. It's just after noon EST here, the same as there, right? :D
 
They'd better keep their planes and ships well clear of ours. I wouldn't want there to be any "friendly fire" accidents. :eh:
 
Squiggy said:
Don't discount our failing relationship with Russia. They, in the long run, are a wildcard we don't want out of our hands.
Click to expand...

And certainly not a nice enemy to have.
 
Am I the only one that recalls a safer world when the Soviets & the Americans were enemies? Neither of us were going to start WW3 (post Cuba)
 
I thought there was going to be more dancing in it. At the end, I thought they would do the campy happy ending. Both of them dancing together on an American stage with his wife holding the baby in the audience.

It was ok I guess. Funny to see it after so many years of being paranoid about the Russians.
 
We could take them... but I'd rather not have to. It really doesn't seem necessary.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer not to try. Looking at the success rate for those patriot missiles, and the size of the Russian nuclear stockpile, I'd rather not find out. Neither side would have any inhabitable cities after we 'took them.' Of course, victory would be tough to define. Would it be the country with the least damage, or that inflicted the most? Clearly they would inflict more monetary, economic and phyiscal damage on us than we could on them. They don't have so much to loose! New York City alone is worth more than all of Russia economically speaking!


New York City gross metro product $461 Billion

Russia gross domstic product $320 billion



http://www.usmayors.org/70thAnnualMeeting/metroecon2002/MetroNations.pdf

The US stand to suffer much higher losses than any competing nation assuming that the enemy can inflict damage on US soil. This is the reason we are in Iraq in the first place.

I'm with Gonz though, cold war = good. Although, I'm not sure I welcome a return to tensions between the US and Russia, because as stated above, they don't have a lot to loose this time. That changes the equation a little!
 
I was thinking in terms of conventional warfare. They don't have anything to gain by going nuclear either. It's really a desperation ploy, and it takes an apocalyptic outlook to go down that road.
 
yes, but anyone who went to war with the US and had them would use them. I don't think anyone has any illusions that a nuclear state would sit on their biggest offensive and defensive assets and let the enemy overrun them and topple their gov't. Thats not a truly rational assumption. Indeed, its optimistic, and we can hope nobody would use them. But I'm quite sure if all the US forces were gathering along the Russian border for a similar invasion, one, the troops would be hit with tactical nukes preventing the invasion, then secondly it would escalate with a full nuclear exchange. I don't think we want to even think about what it means for a world power to go to war with another world power in the modern era. Its unthinkable, and only leads to one devistating conclusion. A conventional war between two such powers doesn't seem very likely. If anything, the fact that any strike would lead inevitably to a nuclear retaliation is the reason such a strike won't happen (at least under normal conditions).

MAD was very successful at preserving relative peace. Lets hope it continues to keep powerful nations in line.
 
RD_151 said:
I don't think anyone has any illusions that a nuclear state would sit on their biggest offensive and defensive assets and let the enemy overrun them and topple their gov't. Thats not a truly rational assumption.
Click to expand...

If I were running an opposing country, that's exactly what I would do: fight with conventional means until all hope is lost, and then surrender. That's because if I went to war, it would be because I thought that was in the best interests of my countrymen. To be at war, I would truly have to believe that. I would fight until there was no fight. However, being dead isn't in their best interests. Thousands or hundreds of thousands might die in conventional war, but millions or hundreds of millions would die in nuclear war. That's simply unacceptable.

Some people might make the statement "I'd rather be dead than be communist", but if I was having to make a decision on behalf of the country, I don't think I could justify such a radical stance.

Live to fight another day... it has worked in the past. That's what revolutions are all about.
 
RD_151 said:
yes, but anyone who went to war with the US and had them would use them.
Click to expand...

Why? If the choice is to be defeated by conventional weapons, or be completely annihilated, why would they choose the latter? Who's going to pump billions of dollars into rebuilding their country if they destroy us?
 
The people (the masses) might choose not to be destroyed (by starting a full scale exchange), but the leaders would not. Do you think Saddam would sit on a nuclear stockpile if he knew he was gonna die anyway? Leaders make decisions, not people. If the people were truly in control, then they would never be used I agree. But the people aren't in control, not even here :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top