• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drop a nuclear bomb on Russia to stop the Crimea from becoming part of Russia?

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin?

  • Yes, Palin was right, threaten and use nuclear weapons to Putin in Crimea crisis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    46
Do you know what I like best about Sarah...

She drive liberals nutz...

Nah. I'm as liberal as all get-out and she gives me the giggles. I'm grateful to the Republican Party for finding such a worthy heir to Dubya.
 
In my 9 years as a member of DP this has to be one of the dumbest polls I have ever seen.

- should Obama be impeached

- is the president stupid

- Hillary too sick to run

- who was the first president to bow

- should I wear pants today

- choose your overlord

And those are just from the first 10 pages. I think this has more to do with biased partisan political views than anything else.
 
- should Obama be impeached

- is the president stupid

- Hillary too sick to run

- who was the first president to bow

- should I wear pants today

- choose your overlord

And those are just from the first 10 pages. I think this has more to do with biased partisan political views than anything else.

Hey! Choose your overlord was a brilliant thread.

Anyway, I'm going to have to go with not nuking our nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth arch-nemesis.
 
What a grossly dishonest OP statement and poll. Only a truly simple mind or an a blind partisan (which are the same in my book) would interpret her statement as equating to calling for a nuclear attack against Russia.

Only nuclear powers can stand up to other nuclear powers in high stakes military relevant poker games. That's why Russia could invade Ukraine and can not invade our or our bases.

If we put just 100 USA troops in Ukraine's holding-out base in Crimea the entire game changes. If we moved aircraft and missiles into Europe, particularly small anti-air and anti-mechanized missiles - indicating we are preparing to provide those to locals and Eastern Europeans and Ukraine Muslims that also be playing some serious cards. To draw a battleline, Russia has to use Russians. We don't have to us USA troops in response. There are millions of people in that region who don't kill Russians only because they don't have the means to do so. We have piles of that hardware.

Its a big deal for Russians to start attacking American troops, because we both got nukes. Since this is on Russia's border, not ours, their risks of conventional style killing is greater. We both understand what escalation ultimately leads to.

Obama doesn't know how to play poker. Putin does.

This also is why we know that Obama has already agreed to give Putin Crimea in his secret long phone call. Now it will all just be words on top of words - all meaning nothing - until everyone tires of the topic and loses interests.

I do not know that is so unfair about it? I just wrote what the Dutch newspaper said about Palin's speech.

My poll is worded fairly IMHO, how much fairer could I be by asking the polling question:

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin

And I cannot put it any fairer than that, it is in fact what nuclear deterrence is according to most.

And Russia can interfere in Crimea because the majority of people on the Crimea is Russian. Ukraine only took possession of it about 70 year ago when it was gifted from one Soviet state to another Soviet state. It then totally ignored the wishes of the people living on the Crimean peninsular. In 1991 the Crimea became an autonomous soviet socialist republic.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the Crimea already tried to become independent from the Ukraine but later it stayed part of Ukraine but again as an autonomous region (according to wikipedia that status was even expanded).

Then it was Ukraine which interfered in this autonomous region and from about 1993 the name of the Crimea officially changed to "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea". The republic already has it's own parliament, a council of ministers as well as a Supreme council. In 2010, the pro-Russia party of the Crimea won 80 of the 100 seats in it's parliament.

Ukraine may not like it, but Crimea has been moving towards independence for a lot of years. This revolt in Ukraine in which the legal president was deposed may have been the final straw. That of course with the fact that immediately the new revolt leaders banned Crimea from having Russian as a second language.

Another few things, the US invaded Grenada to protect a limited number of students so some Russians could claim the only reasons that Russia got involved was to protect Russians in that region. I am not giving an opinion on that reasoning, that will be decided in the history books of the future.

Also, the world worked hard to give the South Sudanese their own country, helped Bosnia-Herzegovina get free from Yugoslavia/Serbia, did the same for Kosovo and Montenegro and now the people of Crimea might want to be free from Ukraine and we should let them at least be able to speak their minds at the referendum.
 
Nah. I'm as liberal as all get-out and she gives me the giggles. I'm grateful to the Republican Party for finding such a worthy heir to Dubya.

^^ This. :lol: I actually hope she sticks around for a while, as long as she's not elected to any office that means anything.
 
I agree with you, you cannot use the ultimate weapon just because people in the Crimea (which is mostly Russians) might want to belong to Russia one cannot use nukes. This could create a war in which millions of innocent people will die.

Millions? How about billions?
 
I do not know that is so unfair about it? I just wrote what the Dutch newspaper said about Palin's speech.

My poll is worded fairly IMHO, how much fairer could I be by asking the polling question:

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin

And I cannot put it any fairer than that, it is in fact what nuclear deterrence is according to most.

And Russia can interfere in Crimea because the majority of people on the Crimea is Russian. Ukraine only took possession of it about 70 year ago when it was gifted from one Soviet state to another Soviet state. It then totally ignored the wishes of the people living on the Crimean peninsular. In 1991 the Crimea became an autonomous soviet socialist republic.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the Crimea already tried to become independent from the Ukraine but later it stayed part of Ukraine but again as an autonomous region (according to wikipedia that status was even expanded).

Then it was Ukraine which interfered in this autonomous region and from about 1993 the name of the Crimea officially changed to "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea". The republic already has it's own parliament, a council of ministers as well as a Supreme council. In 2010, the pro-Russia party of the Crimea won 80 of the 100 seats in it's parliament.

Ukraine may not like it, but Crimea has been moving towards independence for a lot of years. This revolt in Ukraine in which the legal president was deposed may have been the final straw. That of course with the fact that immediately the new revolt leaders banned Crimea from having Russian as a second language.

Another few things, the US invaded Grenada to protect a limited number of students so some Russians could claim the only reasons that Russia got involved was to protect Russians in that region. I am not giving an opinion on that reasoning, that will be decided in the history books of the future.

Also, the world worked hard to give the South Sudanese their own country, helped Bosnia-Herzegovina get free from Yugoslavia/Serbia, did the same for Kosovo and Montenegro and now the people of Crimea might want to be free from Ukraine and we should let them at least be able to speak their minds at the referendum.

It's dishonest because you obviously took Palin's words out of context. Even if you use the Dutch newspaper as an excuse, you should have done a little research before starting a poll like this. At the very least you should have looked at her original remarks. It's obvious to everybody that the remarks were taken out of context. I don't understand whether your intentions are honest or not but your method wasn't.
 
I'm pretty sure Putin is aware the United States has a large arsenal of Nukes.

Stating what she did either implies we need to "Remind" him with threats, of use them as deterrent.


Either way.....It was an ignorant and Palinesque comment.
 
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:

Though it is a rather overkill proposal for this situation, the use of a nuclear weapon could be a very real possibility and possibly a good idea in a situation, where the world community and neighborhood shun responsibility and the US were again forced to act more or less alone. That has been the fundament of international security for the last 20 (an argument could be made for the last 65 years), but its time is running out. When the US can no longer guaranty a semblance of international safety the economic model will be dependent on increasingly competitive regional players and will not work and we will almost certainly have a row of smaller and larger wars with world war a very probable outcome.

It would appear reasonable to develop an international guarantor of security, if we do not want this to happen. On the other hand, There are a lot of powerful people in the world that would personally lose out and very few, who are willing to stand up against them to attain international security. I had hoped that the Iraq incursion would have persuaded enough people to carry us to the point, where such a change would be possible. And it looked as though this were happening, when R2P was introduced as a norm by the UN. But it seems that the downside of having a sheriff instead of a general system of law is fading in memories and we are all back to the idiots' game of letting things go and warlords grabbing the cookies.
 
The gun remark of the NRA is not meant IMHO to just be about deterrence but also the use of said weapons. And if you were only going to threaten to use nuclear weapons, that will be ineffective because Russia would not care about threats. If you want to have nuclear deterrence you also have to be willing to use it to stop Russia on the Crimea peninsular. And because of that, the comments of Palin made absolutely no sense IMO.

You don't have to threaten to use nukes for them to be deterring. The stakes are obviously higher when trying to pick a fight with a country that possesses them. The fact that a country has them enters into the calculations of the other country. You are jumping from A to C, without recognizing B. A being no nukes, C being having them and threatening/using them, B being having them, but no intention of using them.
 
It's dishonest because you obviously took Palin's words out of context. Even if you use the Dutch newspaper as an excuse, you should have done a little research before starting a poll like this. At the very least you should have looked at her original remarks. It's obvious to everybody that the remarks were taken out of context. I don't understand whether your intentions are honest or not but your method wasn't.

That might be your opinion and if so, I could care less. I am of a different opinion and that is that.

I did look at her comments and I am I am still of the opinion that the "good guy with a nuke stops a bad guy with a nuke" was directed at Obama and his lack of resolve towards the Russian situation.
 
Though it is a rather overkill proposal for this situation, the use of a nuclear weapon could be a very real possibility and possibly a good idea in a situation, where the world community and neighborhood shun responsibility and the US were again forced to act more or less alone. That has been the fundament of international security for the last 20 (an argument could be made for the last 65 years), but its time is running out. When the US can no longer guaranty a semblance of international safety the economic model will be dependent on increasingly competitive regional players and will not work and we will almost certainly have a row of smaller and larger wars with world war a very probable outcome.

It would appear reasonable to develop an international guarantor of security, if we do not want this to happen. On the other hand, There are a lot of powerful people in the world that would personally lose out and very few, who are willing to stand up against them to attain international security. I had hoped that the Iraq incursion would have persuaded enough people to carry us to the point, where such a change would be possible. And it looked as though this were happening, when R2P was introduced as a norm by the UN. But it seems that the downside of having a sheriff instead of a general system of law is fading in memories and we are all back to the idiots' game of letting things go and warlords grabbing the cookies.

A good idea in this situation? There is no justification for using nuclear weapons because it can and will lead to a nuclear strike from Russia on US soil. Putin might be nuts but he will strike back with millions dying.
 
You don't have to threaten to use nukes for them to be deterring. The stakes are obviously higher when trying to pick a fight with a country that possesses them. The fact that a country has them enters into the calculations of the other country. You are jumping from A to C, without recognizing B. A being no nukes, C being having them and threatening/using them, B being having them, but no intention of using them.

There is no deterrence if you are not willing to use nukes if needed. Threatening with a big stick is no use if you are not willing to wield such a stick. That is the basis of deterrence, not the owning of a big stick.
 
A good idea in this situation? There is no justification for using nuclear weapons because it can and will lead to a nuclear strike from Russia on US soil. Putin might be nuts but he will strike back with millions dying.

I believe, I said and think you will find should you actually read what I wrote, that the present situation does not lend itself to such action. But it is nice to see you remember MAD theory.
 
There is no deterrence if you are not willing to use nukes if needed. Threatening with a big stick is no use if you are not willing to wield such a stick. That is the basis of deterrence, not the owning of a big stick.

That is exactly why it is so heartbreaking when Kerry and Obama go on with red lines and all options on the table talk.
 
I'm pretty sure Putin is aware the United States has a large arsenal of Nukes.

Stating what she did either implies we need to "Remind" him with threats, of use them as deterrent.


Either way.....It was an ignorant and Palinesque comment.

I have said for years that Palin is nothing but white trash with money and a microphone, and this is yet more evidence of it. All the white trash I have ever known were quick to prescribe nukes as a foreign policy tool. It's the kind of thing that ignorant people say. "If we just started dropping nukes on the Taliban they would give up...." "If we would have used nukes in Vietnam we would have won..." These are the foreign policy ideas that come out of rent trailers and people like Sarah Palin.

Hell if it came down to us having to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, then why not just let Putin have Crimea? Is it worth that much to us.
 
Last edited:
Because Democrats apparently want her center stage.
Had the Liberals spent as much time to study the ACA as they spent on insults towards Sarah Palin, the "Obamacare" would not be desperately mired in the swamp. They cannot leave her alone despite the fact that Sarah does not occupy prominent position in the Republican Party. Why? Because they fear her to the spasms in the stomach. Beautiful, smart woman, surrounded by her husband and children. What kind of a role model is she now for ugly lesbians and crazy feminists?
 
Had the Liberals spent as much time to study the ACA as they spent on insults towards Sarah Palin, the "Obamacare" would not be desperately mired in the swamp. They cannot leave her alone despite the fact that Sarah does not occupy prominent position in the Republican Party. Why? Because they fear her to the spasms in the stomach. Beautiful, smart woman, surrounded by her husband and children. What kind of a role model is she now for ugly lesbians and crazy feminists?

More tripe from Loader that is completely divorced from reality. Nobody "fears" Sarah Palin. We're laughing at her, not fearing her. She's a know-nothing jackass who makes conservatives who talk her up look stupid.
 
More tripe from Loader that is completely divorced from reality. Nobody "fears" Sarah Palin. We're laughing at her, not fearing her. She's a know-nothing jackass who makes conservatives who talk her up look stupid.
If she was just funny, everyone would forget about her. But you afraid her, so hate.
 
Back
Top Bottom