• 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%

  • No, Palin is wrong, threatening with nukes is insane

    Votes: 31 67.4%

  • Yes, sadly Palin is not VP/President or Putin would now be a glowstick/dead

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • No, thank goodness Palin did not become VP/President or we would all be glowsticks/dead

    Votes: 12 26.1%

  • Sarah who?

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Peter King

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,681
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:

Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
Click to expand...
 
Peter King said:
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
Click to expand...

Nukes are used to destroy lots of targets.Killing a bunch of innocent civilians just because we do not want their country to annex another is idiotic and extremely excessive. Palin is wrong.
 
Peter King said:
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
Click to expand...


Nah, let's don't do that.
 
She just wants to watch fireworks from her front porch.
 
Peter King said:
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
Click to expand...
If you watched the video of her speaking, you would see that clearly was not her message.
 
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.
 
Peter King said:
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
Click to expand...

I don't think she was advocating a nuclear exchange.
 
jamesrage said:
Nukes are used to destroy lots of targets.Killing a bunch of innocent civilians just because we do not want their country to annex another is idiotic and extremely excessive. Palin is wrong.
Click to expand...

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.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you know what I like best about Sarah...

She drive liberals nutz...
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you watched the video of her speaking, you would see that clearly was not her message.
Click to expand...

Then what is the reference to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"? Well, maybe she then wants Putin to stop Obama from destroying America with Obamacare, after watching that love fest for Putin last week on Fox (seen it on Daily Show, I know it is a biased selection of clips that may not be the overall opinion on Fox regarding Putin but they cannot claim they did not say some of these things), one might infer that .
 
Peter King said:
Then what is the reference to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"? Well, maybe she then wants Putin to stop Obama from destroying America with Obamacare, after watching that love fest for Putin last week on Fox (seen it on Daily Show, I know it is a biased selection of clips that may not be the overall opinion on Fox regarding Putin but they cannot claim they did not say some of these things), one might infer that .
Click to expand...

Very simplistic view.

Let me try to simply it. Only a person with a gun can stop another person with a gun. Doesn't mean you have to shoot the person to stop them. That's why, for example, I can not recall anyone trying to mug or rob a cop - even if the mugger or robber is armed.

But, to your mind, having a gun for self defense means you are going to shoot someone because you have it.
 
Peter King said:
Then what is the reference to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"? Well, maybe she then wants Putin to stop Obama from destroying America with Obamacare, after watching that love fest for Putin last week on Fox (seen it on Daily Show, I know it is a biased selection of clips that may not be the overall opinion on Fox regarding Putin but they cannot claim they did not say some of these things), one might infer that .
Click to expand...

Watch the video.

I hope you don't think the edited clips out of context on the Daily Show is accurate...
 
One of the surprising revelations learned when the Cold War ended was that Russia was terrified of a US first strike, while in having no first strike plan of their own. Since we used atomic bombs in the past and given how volatile and erratic our politics can be, they thought we might do it. And for that, they always backed down. But that fear also motivated our allies too. They didn't want nuclear war either. So everyone within and without Russia would urge Russia it cool it because who the hell knows that those Americans are going to do if they get too worked up.

Now Russia/Putin knows we aren't going to do jack**** no matter what they do other than whine and bitch for a while. Because of that Putin has all the cards and Obama/the USA has none.
 
LOL...

I'm watching the complete video now of Sarah. She's great. Liberals, please don't watch. She will melt your brain.
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

With the Obama just got punked, he got to do something mantra and the WWRRD mantra going on with republicans it leads me to believe that is what they want.
 
Using nuclear weapons would be the stupidest thing any nation could do. We still live in a world of mutually assured destruction. No nation should ever cross that line. There is nothing worthwhile to gain and everything important to lose.
 
Paschendale said:
Using nuclear weapons would be the stupidest thing any nation could do. We still live in a world of mutually assured destruction. No nation should ever cross that line. There is nothing worthwhile to gain and everything important to lose.
Click to expand...
The premise in the OP is at fault. Sarah never implied such a thing, but that how the media portrayed it, and how lemmings believe BS. that's why I posted the link to Sarah speaking as CPAC. Have a look yourself. Post number 9. Start the video at 22 minutes.
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Palin was indicating that Obama was making a mistake by his efforts to weaken our military and lower our nuclear stockpile while Putin is building up Russia's military power.
 
Ray410 said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Palin was indicating that Obama was making a mistake by his efforts to weaken our military and lower our nuclear stockpile while Putin is building up Russia's military power.
Click to expand...
True, but I doubt they can see with their blinders on. They will believe what ever the media tells them to believe.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I'm watching the complete video now of Sarah. She's great. Liberals, please don't watch. She will melt your brain.
Click to expand...

That is true, the only thing that upsets the Liberals as much as Sarah Palin is Rush Limbaugh. I hope nobody mentions him on this thread.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The premise in the OP is at fault. Sarah never implied such a thing, but that how the media portrayed it, and how lemmings believe BS. that's why I posted the link to Sarah speaking as CPAC. Have a look yourself. Post number 9. Start the video at 22 minutes.
Click to expand...

I do think that she implied that, she is the one who commented on Russian empire and stopping a bad man with nuclear weapons. If she were not talking about Russia then why should she talk about this after whining about how she thinks Obama is not doing enough against Putin.
 
jamesrage said:
Nukes are used to destroy lots of targets.Killing a bunch of innocent civilians just because we do not want their country to annex another is idiotic and extremely excessive. Palin is wrong.
Click to expand...

The quote may be out of context but I don't think Palin was saying nuke Moscow. More in line with former Cold War strategy of insuring the Soviets of complete nuclear annihilation for everyone. Peace through strength that helped win the Cold War without using nukes.

>" Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm..."<
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom