By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Russia threatens to nuke poland

Words Of Wisdom on 15 August 2008

Are we all done with the pissing contest yet?

It'd be nice to get back to discussing the comment made by that Russian fellow.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 15 August 2008
Words Of Wisdom said:

Are we all done with the pissing contest yet?

It'd be nice to get back to discussing the comment made by that Russian fellow.

 

I don't really see anything preventing it from being discussed.  What, specifically, did you want to discuss?
To Each Man, Responsibility
Kasz216 on 15 August 2008
rocketpig said:
stof said:
Sqrl said:
okr said:
^^ Thank you, stof. First reasonable post by a mod in this thread.

Russia won't ever nuke Poland, but the VGChartz Fox News Anchor Man (the strange guy with the Bioshock avatar) loves nuking the off-topic section with "meaningful political" threads and watching members' reactions.

 

Yes, how could I have missed it, the only reasonable conclusion is that the US is to blame. How dare we invent and implement technology to ensure our survival in the event that some psycho tries to nuke us. Its not at all creepy that Russia is worried about no longer being able to nuke the US. Clearly Russia is innocent, those poor poor people.

 

Wow there sqrl, I didn't say it's the U.S.'s fault. Both countries are just looking out for their own security issues. As are countries like Iran and North Korea. If your largest potential enemy is the United States, of course your going to attempt to produce Nuclear weapons.

It just amazes me how the U.S isn't focusing more attention on Nuclear disarmament. They have far more to fear from old Russian Nukes being smuggled in to the states by terrorists than they do from these so called "rogue nations". They could dramatically reduce the chances of an attack on their or other soil, while simultaneously saving them billions of dollars if they made steps to reduce nuclear stockpiles both at home and abroad.

Agreed, to a point. No one will get rid of nuclear weapons, but the less nukes floating around the former Soviet Bloc (or Russia itself), the better it is for the United States. Nations won't use nuclear weapons because they're a clear target. You can just nuke them back and turn them into a giant glass parking lot, negating any benefit gained by attacking the United States. A dictator may be crazy but his ultimate goal is to stay in power; annihilate his country and he has nothing left to rule. There's no upside.

It's those damned terrorists you have to worry about... They can strike and hope that no one will catch them. When it's nation vs. nation, that's simply impossible.

I disagree somewhat... during Vietnam the US was really close to trying to nuke the crap out of everything russian and chinese.  I'd almost gurantee the russians were really close to doing the same at some point.

Mutually assured destruction while prevents a lot of it... also leads to "Well if we nuke just about everything they have, REALLY fast we might just be ok."

Hence why missle defense systems are needed.  Also, to the person who said it above.  No the US would not Nuke Canada if Russia put nuclear defense missles there.  That's just stupid.



stof on 15 August 2008
Sqrl said:
stof said:
For the record, I acknowledge we'd never get rid of nukes all together, I was suggesting a reduction in stockpiles.

As for the missile defense shield, I think it's one of the worst policies the U.S. could engage in. They've spent billions on an unproven system that is already sparking a renewed arms race as nations attempt to find countermeasures. If anything it just makes the world (and the United States) a less secure place. why they wish to stir up the nuke pot alludes me. With the exception of the military industrial complex and their lobbyists, nobody benefits from this one.

 

See I don't understand this logic at all, why distrust the people who are developing anti-nuke technologies and not the people who are undoing that work?  If other countries are trying to find countermeasures they are the ones creating the instability not the US. 

The arms race goes back and forth between offense and defense with each technology leapfrogging the other back and forth.  The only logical place to end any arms race is on the defensive side. The people swinging it back to offensive side take the blame in escalation because they necessitate another swing back to defense before it can end.

 

Because those developing countermeasures are doing it for defensive reasons. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the concept of MAD. Right now that is the best defence any nation (including the U.S.) has against being a nuclear target. Were the missile defense shield to actually work, suddenly the U.S. is free of this principle. And every country who isn't friends with the U.S. now has to look at the prospect of an enemy that can fire thousands of nuclear weapons but is itself guarded against such an attack. The logical step for those countries is to find new ways to defend themselves, both technological and strategic. This thread is in regard to a strategic defense, with Russia pointing out that countries that aid the United States in toppling this nuclear stalemate can find themselves subject to the consequences.

When it comes to Nuclear weapons, the missile shield and "rogue nations" defence and offence are inseparable. 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Kasz216 on 15 August 2008

As for the source? The AP News.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie3N_5xk8Z20qcSJG0MilftDpsLwD92ISLK00

Kuwait news agency

http://168.187.77.132/newsagenciespublicsite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1931518&Language=en

 



Around the Network
stof on 15 August 2008
Kasz216 said:

I disagree somewhat... during Vietnam the US was really close to trying to nuke the crap out of everything russian and chinese.  I'd almost gurantee the russians were really close to doing the same at some point.

Mutually assured destruction while prevents a lot of it... also leads to "Well if we nuke just about everything they have, REALLY fast we might just be ok."

Hence why missle defense systems are needed.  Also, to the person who said it above.  No the US would not Nuke Canada if Russia put nuclear defense missles there.  That's just stupid.

for the first bolded point - part of why it works is because that pretty much can't happen. Both Russia and the U.S. desperately tried, but even under their best scenarios, there was just no way to eradicate an entire country without them being able to do the same.

 

As for the second bolded point - no, but they almost nuked Russia over missiles in Cuba, which was a direct response to U.S. missiles in East Europe. Why did it not actually happen? mostly because of my response to the first bolded point.

 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Sqrl on 15 August 2008
stof said:
Sqrl said:
stof said:
For the record, I acknowledge we'd never get rid of nukes all together, I was suggesting a reduction in stockpiles.

As for the missile defense shield, I think it's one of the worst policies the U.S. could engage in. They've spent billions on an unproven system that is already sparking a renewed arms race as nations attempt to find countermeasures. If anything it just makes the world (and the United States) a less secure place. why they wish to stir up the nuke pot alludes me. With the exception of the military industrial complex and their lobbyists, nobody benefits from this one.

 

See I don't understand this logic at all, why distrust the people who are developing anti-nuke technologies and not the people who are undoing that work?  If other countries are trying to find countermeasures they are the ones creating the instability not the US. 

The arms race goes back and forth between offense and defense with each technology leapfrogging the other back and forth.  The only logical place to end any arms race is on the defensive side. The people swinging it back to offensive side take the blame in escalation because they necessitate another swing back to defense before it can end.

 

Because those developing countermeasures are doing it for defensive reasons. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the concept of MAD. Right now that is the best defence any nation (including the U.S.) has against being a nuclear target. Were the missile defense shield to actually work, suddenly the U.S. is free of this principle. And every country who isn't friends with the U.S. now has to look at the prospect of an enemy that can fire thousands of nuclear weapons but is itself guarded against such an attack. The logical step for those countries is to find new ways to defend themselves, both technological and strategic. This thread is in regard to a strategic defense, with Russia pointing out that countries that aid the United States in toppling this nuclear stalemate can find themselves subject to the consequences.

When it comes to Nuclear weapons, the missile shield and "rogue nations" defence and offence are inseparable. 

But unlike the US these nations are bypassing the defense rather than developing their own defense. You said it yourself above actually (see bolded).

If you're afraid of being nuked you develope a defense, if you want to use nukes you bypass nuclear defenses. 

Shouldn't the goal be MAN(Mutually Assured Non-Desctruction) not MAD?

PS - I just thought of the MAN thing, its probably been thought of before but I thought it was pretty GD appropriate.
To Each Man, Responsibility
okr on 15 August 2008
Sqrl said:
okr said:
Sqrl said:
stof said:
Sqrl said:
okr said:
^^ Thank you, stof. First reasonable post by a mod in this thread. ...

Yes, how could I have missed it, the only reasonable conclusion is that the US is to blame. ...

Wow there sqrl, I didn't say it's the U.S.'s fault. ...

I wasn't saying you were, I was reacting to the idea that you somehow had the only reasonable response.

Hm, did I say stof had the only reasonable response or did I say it was the first reasonable response by a mod?

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.

I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...

And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.



Sqrl on 15 August 2008
okr said:
Sqrl said:

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.

1) I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...

2) And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.

1) Your first sentence in the post only served to declare that several posters were wrong and you failed to back it up, this is a violation of the forum rules. Period.  The end.

2) I realize you are proud of this, but this violate rules 4-4.

"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures." 

Now, I haven't even given you a warning yet but if you'd like to continue we can change that.  All I asked you to do was support your position with an argument or don't post.  You can agree with (and disagree with) whoever you like so long as you actually support it.
To Each Man, Responsibility
stof on 15 August 2008
Sqrl said:

 

Because those developing countermeasures are doing it for defensive reasons. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the concept of MAD. Right now that is the best defence any nation (including the U.S.) has against being a nuclear target. Were the missile defense shield to actually work, suddenly the U.S. is free of this principle. And every country who isn't friends with the U.S. now has to look at the prospect of an enemy that can fire thousands of nuclear weapons but is itself guarded against such an attack. The logical step for those countries is to find new ways to defend themselves, both technological and strategic. This thread is in regard to a strategic defense, with Russia pointing out that countries that aid the United States in toppling this nuclear stalemate can find themselves subject to the consequences.

When it comes to Nuclear weapons, the missile shield and "rogue nations" defence and offence are inseparable. 

But unlike the US these nations are bypassing the defense rather than developing their own defense. You said it yourself above actually (see bolded).

If you're afraid of being nuked you develope a defense, if you want to use nukes you bypass nuclear defenses. 

Shouldn't the goal be MAN(Mutually Assured Non-Desctruction) not MAD?

PS - I just thought of the MAN thing, its probably been thought of before but I thought it was pretty GD appropriate.

That's what I was saying with the second bolded part. The best defence against nuclear arms is nuclear arms. And the best offence against a nation with nuclear arms is to develop protection from nuclear arms. I was trying to say that the missile shield is just as much an offensive move as securing nuclear weapons is a defensive one. If you were a nation that saw the weapon shield as a U.S. move to tip the balance of a nuclear stalemate, why wouldn't you seek to re-establish that stalemate to defend your nation?



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.