- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 13,029
- Reaction score
- 6,995
- Location
- Near Atlanta Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
It is not a question of knowing, education or will. It is the game that is defining itself. It is competitive, multipolar structure. Its optimum solution is open conflict. If we do not change the structure, we get war.
Good point. I should have said that he did not understand the issue. Past tense. But it would help if he was more honest and knowledgeable during the 2012 debates. Perhaps the American public would be more knowledgeable.
The cold war never ended. I would call this a warm war.
The game's optimum solution may be open conflict, but I say the structure is maintained by other and higher powers that usually do not prescribe to military codes of conduct.
I certainly wish you were right. Alas, I have seen no evidence of this.
The last chain in the military command is the elected President. Have you seen evidence that Presidents are a good for a "go" in Global open war?
Oh, yes. They have been known to risk it. But there are many ways we can slip into war, when in a situation like pre WW1. And that is where we are going.
Okay, this position just got repeated.
How about you elaborate the scenes that you have in mind that resemble the ones from WW1?
The first thing is to realize that the US or Russia are not the only players in the game and that the most dangerous thing about the game plan is technological or human error. An attack requires retaliation out of the logic of the game or blackmail rules. If first strike capability is enough to prevent the attacked to retaliate, the response time is crucial. A twenty minute delivery say Saudi Arabia to Iran that destroys the nuclear capability gives the attacked ten minutes to decide, if it is an attack or a technical failure. The decision matrix is a little more complicated, but not very much so.
Which of the presidents of these countries mentioned above is planning to make the first attack?
More interesting would be, which would not respond to an all out attack, before the second strike capability was wiped out.
Simpleχity;1064803522 said:U.S. Air Force leader sees Russia as 'biggest threat'
Those old turbo-props are just collecting ELINT data. The real deal will be Tu-160 bombers armed with new Yu-71 hypersonic (Mach 10) nuclear missiles.
The Russian Tu-160 Blackjack bomber is the world's largest supersonic variable-sweep aircraft
This question, though it has more interest (I agree) depends on the previous question: Which of the presidents of the countries mentioned above is planning to make the first attack?
Thereby is secondary by nature.
I do not think that a first strike would normally be in any rules's interest, unless he thinks he can win. Any competent military, however, plans attack and quick response. And in some cases intelligence might tell the leader that all is too late and first strike quick is the only way to prevent losing. This could be in a situation of war between an ally and an aggressor or between an enemy and a neighbor etc. Where you might find another problem is in the sale of wmd to non formal groups. This has happened and could again. The material could be released in say NYC or Shanghai and a million or more could die. That could annoy any ruler to the point of attack, depending on the circumstances.
Okay, this position just got repeated.
How about you elaborate the scenes that you have in mind that resemble the ones from WW1?
Simpleχity;1064803522 said:U.S. Air Force leader sees Russia as 'biggest threat'
Those old turbo-props are just collecting ELINT data. The real deal will be Tu-160 bombers armed with new Yu-71 hypersonic (Mach 10) nuclear missiles.
The Russian Tu-160 Blackjack bomber is the world's largest supersonic variable-sweep aircraft
Simpleχity;1064807307 said:Lol @ Monte. He always knows more than those within the information loop.
Yesterday it was the Air Force Secretary...
U.S. Air Force leader sees Russia as 'biggest threat'
Today the newly nominated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed...
Russia is biggest threat to US national security, Joint Chiefs nominee tells Congress
Yep, the new place to fear is Russia.
Simpleχity;1064807502 said:Not to fear. To closely monitor. And for ample reasons...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/224111-russia-putin.html
Lol. As long as Moscow remains over the proverbial barrel, Beijing has a new chew toy to wrangle concessions from.So in response to more than a dozen years of belligerent US foreign policy, Russia and China forge alliances to defend their interests...
Simpleχity;1064807519 said:Lol. As long as Moscow remains over the proverbial barrel, Beijing has a new chew toy to wrangle concessions from.
The cold war never ended. I would call this a warm war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?