Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
It is not a stupid question.
What the hell kind of question is that?
Of course I'm going for "multi-polar world".
No sane person wants a nuclear war.
I can get the "excitement "in the video games. Don't want a real one.But think of the excitement.
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
A stupid question Indeed.
There would be no need to ask such a stupid question if people in the U.S. foreign policy establishment did not do stupid things. People such as you advocate for U.S. military intervention right on the border of a nuclear armed country that has the ability to destroy the U.S. If such stupid policy were not being advocated, there would be no need for such a stupid question in the first place.
And people like YOU panic at the thought of confronting oppressive regimes.
Foreign Policy decisions shouldn't be based on a irrational fear of a exaggerated threat. That leads to appeasement and eventually a far more dangerous World.
You really think Putin would launch a Nuclear strike on American soil just to keep Ukraine ? Where's the logic in that assessment ?
This isn't about confronting a regime because of oppression. If we were really concerned about that we would confront Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly U.S. interests in Ukraine lie in containing Russia. However people like you cannot differentiate between an interest and a vital interest. Although Ukraine is of interest to the U.S. because the U.S. does have an interest in containing Russia, it is not a VITAL interest. However, Crimea is a vital interest of Russia. There is no panic on my part. What I am trying to do is keep people who think like you that actually have power from putting the U.S. in a position in which there would actually be a need to panic.
If the U.S. launched an assault to take Crimea from Russia, Russia would be in a situation in which their conventional forces would be overwhelmed by U.S. military superiority. In that situation it is highly likely that they would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Why some idiots want to put the U.S. in such a position over Ukraine is mind boggling.
That said, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and eastern Ukraine from Russia by force?
No, they would not likely respond with Nuclear Weapons. Why on earth would they risk their people and their Sovereign territory over Ukraine ? They wouldn't. Not too mention the current stock piles of Nuclear Bombs on both sides primarily contain strategic weapons with low yields.
The big 40 Megaton city killers don't exist anymore and the largest weapon we or the Russians have is around 9 Megatons.
The only threat of a Nuclear strike would be from a rogue Nation, Terrorist organization or rogue individual.
It takes a vivid imagination to come up with a scenario that would lead to a all out Nuclear exchange with Russia.
Personally, I think the ideal solution would have been some kind of negotiated deal where Russia was allowed to use the naval facilities they needed without basically having a civil war in a couple countries.I think that you are dead wrong. A U.S. assault on Crimea would be a direct attack on the heart of Russian naval power. Russia would surely lose in a full, direct, conventional conflict with the U.S. It would be a devastating blow to Russian power, because that is the only place from which they can project substantial naval power. Yes, they would be forced to retaliate with nuclear weapons under such a scenario. Do you actually think Russia could let the U.S. severely damage their naval power in such a way? You must be out of your mind.
I asked you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Russia by force? What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
I can get the "excitement "in the video games. Don't want a real one.
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
No country or people should be considered above another, that is my response. The idea that some lives matter more than others is the root of all that is wrong with the world.
What a stupid question. But what's even worst, is that it was such a waste of potential. There's a good discussion of whether a bipolar or multi-polar world is best.
There would be no need to ask stupid questions if people in charge of implementing U.S. foreign policy did not do stupid things.
Now here's why this one was stupid.
If it is stupid to you, fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Fair point. I suppose that goes for the majority of posters on this thread that said it's stupid, yes?
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?