There was an (eventually abandoned) effort to create something similar in Asia. It was called SEATO.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
Quote: (05-03-2014 06:02 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Technically most of Ukraine wasn't EURO either.But that's another story. Better question why the fuck would the average EU national want those uncivilized barbarians in their union?
Once they get in they will get visa free travel to USA...bring their Molotov cocktails with them as well?
Quote:Quote:
BTW Russia will never be considered West all though they can westernize until they start acting western.Its a Eurasian country.
Quote:Quote:
I also believe the term West as the state dept uses it includes South Korea and Japan. I think any country that has become a US client state with democracy and other institutions is considered Western today. I don't buy the whole white race crap simply because most of the west isn't solely or even majority wise white now or in the future.
Quote: (05-03-2014 06:34 PM)Orion Wrote:1.The nuts going around beating people with chains are barbarians.Besides from a Euro mentality they are barbarians (Russia also) due to mongol invasion. This is how many in Lviv even see Russians btw.They always mention the Mongols lol.
Quote: (05-03-2014 06:02 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Technically most of Ukraine wasn't EURO either.But that's another story. Better question why the fuck would the average EU national want those uncivilized barbarians in their union?
Once they get in they will get visa free travel to USA...bring their Molotov cocktails with them as well?
Wow wow, hold on. No need to label any nation as uncivilized barbarians. There might be Ukrainians here too. Those labels are very dangerous to use, and anger those who they are directed at.
Believe me i felt it on my own skin, my nation was once labelled as uncivilized barbarians and entire world raced each other who will drop more bombs on us, and who will contribute more to expansion of "democracy and human rights".
Quote:Quote:
BTW Russia will never be considered West all though they can westernize until they start acting western.Its a Eurasian country.
Romania isn't west either. But it's an European nation. And that's the whole point.
Quote:Quote:
I also believe the term West as the state dept uses it includes South Korea and Japan. I think any country that has become a US client state with democracy and other institutions is considered Western today. I don't buy the whole white race crap simply because most of the west isn't solely or even majority wise white now or in the future.
It's not race crap, it's cultural crap. Japanese culture was always so resilient that they even got to keep the Emperor. NATO is not a democracy club, or money club. It's European's club. Why did Albania join, a nation of muslim majority, and Japan did not, or Philippines ? Figure it out. It's a western cultural block. And it sees Russia as European state gone rogue, which needs to be integrated back, under one common policy, of course, which is nowadays liberalism.
Quote: (05-03-2014 02:58 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2014 01:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:???
Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?
No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.
There was NO agreement. MAD was a concept the US gov't invented(made up fantasy) to feel better and make the population less fearful.
But Russian military doctrine never believed in it. Red Army military leaders often were bewildered that the Americans believed in MAD.
That being said it has come out that many Pentagon officials also believed in the use of low yield nukes and didn't strictly abide by MAD ideology.
There reasoning is that since Soviet conventional forces outnumbered NATO forces the US needed nuclear deterrence.
Now the role is reverse and Russian doctrine authorizes tactical nukes if their forces are being overwhelmed and their statehood or interests are at stake. Yeltsin actually wrote up the 1st draft of the doctrine. Putin /Medvedev re issued it.
How in theory it works is Russia uses it on the battlefield in confrontation. In theory even if NATO returns a nuclear bomb.Russia doesn't lose much since it was already facing defeat and chances are their forces have dispersed anyway..so damage will be small.
Of course NATO could decide to throw the nuke at an unrelated force or base but then they risk that Russia will do the same. That is the concept of escalation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
The whole TV/media image of all the silo missiles launching is pretty much fear mongering. No one in their right mind would do that. That's more of the scenario of a retaliation with = number of incoming. But who would do that?
In any case if Putin did use a small nuke, IMHO NATO would lose many members.Most of the small countries would drop out because they can't afford a detonation on their territory and wouldn't want the consequences. The old "better dead before RED" isn't going to hold for 90% of citizens or politicians today.
I think the EU liberals and USA /Canadian ones would storm the gov't and demand an end (and impeachment also). Today's Western society isn't as naive as the past generations and they aren't going to sacrifice themselves for Mc Cain, Neo Cons, and other 1% er's.
The Vietnam protests pretty much showed the attitude change.
Quote: (05-04-2014 09:33 AM)RexImperator Wrote:He has Neo con attitude when it comes to Russia ....And the Neo Cons follow his strategy, etc.
Jim, while he shares some hawkish stances on Russia with them, I wouldn't actually consider Zbig to be a neocon. He's often been very critical of neoconservative foreign policy.
Quote: (05-04-2014 10:32 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:It can spiral out of control but hopefully the Pentagon wouldn't allow that. That doesn't change the fact that most legit gov't would try to make it a controlled escalation.
Quote: (05-03-2014 02:58 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2014 01:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:???
Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?
No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.
There was NO agreement. MAD was a concept the US gov't invented(made up fantasy) to feel better and make the population less fearful.
But Russian military doctrine never believed in it. Red Army military leaders often were bewildered that the Americans believed in MAD.
That being said it has come out that many Pentagon officials also believed in the use of low yield nukes and didn't strictly abide by MAD ideology.
There reasoning is that since Soviet conventional forces outnumbered NATO forces the US needed nuclear deterrence.
Now the role is reverse and Russian doctrine authorizes tactical nukes if their forces are being overwhelmed and their statehood or interests are at stake. Yeltsin actually wrote up the 1st draft of the doctrine. Putin /Medvedev re issued it.
How in theory it works is Russia uses it on the battlefield in confrontation. In theory even if NATO returns a nuclear bomb.Russia doesn't lose much since it was already facing defeat and chances are their forces have dispersed anyway..so damage will be small.
Of course NATO could decide to throw the nuke at an unrelated force or base but then they risk that Russia will do the same. That is the concept of escalation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
The whole TV/media image of all the silo missiles launching is pretty much fear mongering. No one in their right mind would do that. That's more of the scenario of a retaliation with = number of incoming. But who would do that?
In any case if Putin did use a small nuke, IMHO NATO would lose many members.Most of the small countries would drop out because they can't afford a detonation on their territory and wouldn't want the consequences. The old "better dead before RED" isn't going to hold for 90% of citizens or politicians today.
I think the EU liberals and USA /Canadian ones would storm the gov't and demand an end (and impeachment also). Today's Western society isn't as naive as the past generations and they aren't going to sacrifice themselves for Mc Cain, Neo Cons, and other 1% er's.
The Vietnam protests pretty much showed the attitude change.
You say things have changed within the west, I dont believe they have and nuclear weapons are a stage of war which has not been seen since the destruction of two Japanese cities.
We have had western governments acting aggressively since 2001 with rapid expansion of NATO and the defence shield.
Russia using tactical nukes on the battlefield would not be considered a tactical act of war by the USA or NATO, it will be an escalation of force which would spiral out of control.
I mentioned MAD because it is a logical thought process. You have two sides with the same type of weaponry, both can wipe out half the globe with an exchange.
It comes down to who pulls the trigger first. You need to launch yours to get maximum effect and at the same time destroy the main enemy launch pads.
I dont consider the use of any nuclear weapon as a limited force, it does nothing but creates a fear of the unknown. Your enemy is prepared to use them so now you need to do the same and before you know it Pentagon and NORAD officials are gunning for a full-on nuclear exchange.
The fear of the Red Army is still around, its why the US backed off Syria.
Quote: (05-04-2014 11:15 AM)RexImperator Wrote:Yes...what would they do if no one was working in sweat shops making their Iphones? lol
Liberals can also accept US hegemony but want to promote it more through soft power, trade, and international institutions, etc.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic...ity_theory
Quote: (05-03-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
There is little functional difference between any of the American presidential "candidates", regardless of the party affiliation. Of whatever stripe and form of rhetoric, they all represent the oligarchy of financial-military interests. The interests of the common man be damned.
Quote: (05-04-2014 04:53 PM)Orion Wrote:
Democrats just brought warfare to another level - drones.