- Joined
- Oct 22, 2017
- Messages
- 13,590
- Reaction score
- 5,290
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That does not appear to be an answer.
It does to me.
That does not appear to be an answer.
It does to me.
You must have a very different definition of both "Tantrum" and "answer" than either I or the dictionary have.
When someone starts flying off the handle and storms out of a discussion because he can't handle a little criticism then I'd call that a tantrum. How would you characterize it?
Looks like you are using hyperbolic terms...
I thought you and Oozlefinch were having a pretty good discussion. You were disagreeing at points. But everything was pretty much on even keel. Up until Post #41 I saw no 'tantrum". And I believe Oozlefinch may have misinterpreted your Post #41 which appears where the wheels came off the cart.
Then mutual combat ensues...
I thought you and Oozlefinch were having a pretty good discussion. You were disagreeing at points. But everything was pretty much on even keel. Up until Post #41 I saw no 'tantrum". And I believe Oozlefinch may have misinterpreted your Post #41 which appears where the wheels came off the cart.
Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.[/BUS/
Russia nuclear weapons aren't going to magically disappear and there are no plans to scale back further on inventories. On the contrary, both nations are in the midst of modernizing their nuclear arsenals. From my point of view, Russia's Novator missile system is in material breach of the INF and has been so since at least 2010. Besides range-violation issues, the Novator mobile launch vehicle is also in INF material breach because it can accommodate the nuclear capable Iskander-M missile. This situation makes verification impossible. Putin's military excursions into Europe since 2008 makes it clear that [forced] territorial expansion is a tenet of current Kremlin geopolitical doctrine. Thus I have few meaningful reservations concerning US tactical nukes. They could very well be that great 'unknown' that alters Putin's current calculus regarding future Russian expansionism on the European continent.
The broad-based Russian violation of INF treaty should have been taken far more seriously years ago, before the new systems were deployed. At this point it is highly unlikely that a mutual inspection regime (the anti-ballistic missile site in Poland included) would be agreed to, or effective. Putin made it clear at least a decade or more ago that he wished Russia had retained its IRBMs, and he is not going to give them up regardless.
Hence, it is necessary to deploy counter-chips; intermediate and tactical nuclear systems of sufficient range to destroy invading Russian forces and retaliate against Russia west of the Urals.
The broad-based Russian violation of INF treaty should have been taken far more seriously years ago, before the new systems were deployed. At this point it is highly unlikely that a mutual inspection regime (the anti-ballistic missile site in Poland included) would be agreed to, or effective. Putin made it clear at least a decade or more ago that he wished Russia had retained its IRBMs, and he is not going to give them up regardless.
Therefore, US policymakers must belatedly send a stronger signal that enough is enough. The deployment of some combination of land-based IRBM and tactual nuclear weapons in Nato front-line countries is the obvious counter-move in the game of nations - as well as consideration of IRBM interceptors targeting Russian based launches. The article's speculation over Russian intention are problematical and therefore irrelevant, their increased nuclear capability is a reality and it will serve whatever future intentions Putin may have - such as serving as a threat to preserve further invasions and more annexations of border states.
Hence, it is necessary to deploy counter-chips; intermediate and tactical nuclear systems of sufficient range to destroy invading Russian forces and retaliate against Russia west of the Urals.
The west is not in any position to launch a full scale conventional war against Russia, politically or militarily. The Russians are at no disadvantage given there vastly larger tank reserves and the wests feckless division, small militaries, and weak sisters. Putin knows that.
The largest mistake the West can make is to appease Putin and the disarmament lobby, as we should have learned in the lessons taught in pre-WWII politics.
Hyperbolic terms? They seem to be an accurate description of what occurred - at least from my perspective. He did his *facepalm* in Post #40 and I responded in kind and I figured that should have been the end of it... I don't understand why he felt the need to escalate it further from there, but apparently he did.
I am just a third party here... If you believe a facepalm is a tantrum I don't know what to say.
Let's agree that appeasement is not an option.... given that fact, can you envision a plausible scenario where use of IRBM's by either side doesn't almost immediately lead to a full-scale Nuclear War?
While I am not a master of scenario building, I am well aware that such builders have produced a multitude of nuclear full-scale and limited scale wars. One the early public illustrations of the complexity and of scenarios is in Herman Kahn's book , On Thermonuclear War. As I recall, he provided some of those alternative scenarios to MAD.
So yes, I can envision it. It depends on who first uses it, for what purpose, and who is targeted. If, for example, NATO had to resort to a limited tactical nuke strike (or more) against invading Soviet Forces in cold war Europe (as they most assuredly would have) then one could envision the Soviet leader threatening a counter use (or using a retaliation) AND offering NATO the concession of an immediate ceasefire to consolidate Soviet gains.
Cold War Europe was different kettle of fish, though... the Soviet Union had a lot of "buffer states" - if we were to use tactical nuclear weapons against a fixed installation today, odds are pretty good that installation would be on Russian soil. That makes a big difference, does it not?
It might...but as I said, it depends on who, what, when, and why. The use of nukes could occur anywhere: Ukraine, Crimea, Russia, Poland Aegis site... Intentions are difficult to know, capabilities are more certain. Hence, matching capabilities is not only wise from a defense stand-point, but also from a political messaging standpoint. As we should have learned from Hitler - when you acquiesce, you tell the aggressor that you are less likely to confront his future aggression.
Had the West been more assertive prior to or during Russia's invasion of the Crimea, the current war over eastern Ukraine may not have been necessary.
*LOL* Say what you want.... it's pretty obvious from you getting into my face while saying nothing at all to the other party where you stand on this issue.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. used nukes in Iraq 2003 is a ****ing idiot.
There you go again... You haven't been on the fighting side of me (yet) so you have no clue what me "getting into your face" is like...
And if you believe what I typed is "getting in your face" perhaps you are a bit of a snowflake....
Most Texians wanted to separate from Mexico in 1835....the US - having a cultural affinity for the Texian rebels, and viewing the region within it's sphere of influence - had a vested interest in Texan independence.
*LOL* Ohhhh... "the fighting side of you"? Hang on a sec while I shudder.
Let me ask you this.... What kind of childish mentality comes on here looking to fight with a bunch of strangers on the internet?
Isn't it about time you and your pal grow up and get yourselves lives and actually start debating like adults? All of this petty playground crap is ridiculous.
The US was not involved in the Texas Revolution in any way. They sent no troops there, they sent no weapons there. They also did not send them any money or anything else.
And the reason Texans wanted to separate is basically because of the Mexican Revolution of 1832. By 1835 the new government of Antonio Lopez se Santa Anna had started to make so many changes that most in Texas were opposed to the new government. Disarming the local militias, exiling political opponents, dissolving the Mexican Congress, removing the power of the Supreme Court, and starting a process to disenfranchise Protestants were just the start.
It was the battle with the Zacatecan Militia and the aftermath that finally set the citizens in Texas towards revolt. After his army was victorious, Santa Anna allowed his military to loot and sack the city for 48 hours before establishing control again. That kind of punitive order was ultimately what led to the Revolution. Most of the citizens in Texas were immigrants, and Protestants. And allowing themselves to be disarmed without a fight would have largely been suicide.
I think you are confusing or combining the Texas Revolution with the Mexican-American War. A much later conflict, in 1846 after the US annexed Texas. Which is interesting in and of itself, since it was largely the Mexican refusal to recognize Texas Independence (even with a treaty guaranteeing it) that led to that conflict.
The US was not involved in the Texas Revolution in any way. They sent no troops there, they sent no weapons there. They also did not send them any money or anything else.
And the reason Texans wanted to separate is basically because of the Mexican Revolution of 1832. By 1835 the new government of Antonio Lopez se Santa Anna had started to make so many changes that most in Texas were opposed to the new government. Disarming the local militias, exiling political opponents, dissolving the Mexican Congress, removing the power of the Supreme Court, and starting a process to disenfranchise Protestants were just the start.
It was the battle with the Zacatecan Militia and the aftermath that finally set the citizens in Texas towards revolt. After his army was victorious, Santa Anna allowed his military to loot and sack the city for 48 hours before establishing control again. That kind of punitive order was ultimately what led to the Revolution. Most of the citizens in Texas were immigrants, and Protestants. And allowing themselves to be disarmed without a fight would have largely been suicide.
I think you are confusing or combining the Texas Revolution with the Mexican-American War. A much later conflict, in 1846 after the US annexed Texas. Which is interesting in and of itself, since it was largely the Mexican refusal to recognize Texas Independence (even with a treaty guaranteeing it) that led to that conflict.
I bolded the insults, hyperbole and general BS of yours....
As to growing up.... Physician, heal thyself....