Russia plans nuclear wargame - Page 3

The Vagabond · February 5, 2004, 07:29

Of course

Whaleboy · February 5, 2004, 08:20

Ummm, gents, wargame? No actual nukings happening...
So relax!!!

Spiffor · February 5, 2004, 08:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Putin is bringing back the empire. There is little doubt about it, as far as I see it. The real question is: will it benefit the russian people

I think it can be good for the Russians, insofar as it will boost morale and give some guidance after the miserable period of anarchy and catastrophic corruption under Eltsin.

However, we need to see if Putin wants to bring imperialism back, or merely an authoritative democracy.

Saras · February 5, 2004, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I think it can be good for the Russians, insofar as it will boost morale and give some guidance after the miserable period of anarchy and catastrophic corruption under Eltsin.

A people that feel good oppressing other peoples ods not deserve to feel good. And empire is exactly that. Why are you so symapthetic towards Russia building an empire and so against Americans building their own?

Spiffor · February 5, 2004, 08:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras
A people that feel good oppressing other peoples ods not deserve to feel good. And empire is exactly that. Why are you so symapthetic towards Russia building an empire and so against Americans building their own?

I am against Russia building an empire, and I think Russia has committed far, faaar more crimes in Chechnya than the US in Iraq + Yugoslavia combined. He should have left Chechnya very long ago

I don't know if Putin wants to restore exactly an "empire" in the meaning of taking over and pilfering the neighbours. So far, it seems he wants to restore an authoritative government with possibilities of overruling (authoritative democracy). The emphasis on military and diplomatic issues, that remind the past glory, may be an efficient way to boost the Russians' morale, which definitely needs it.

If he does it without imperialism, I think he'll bring good things to Russians. If he restores imperialism, that would be an unforgivable wreck.

PLATO · February 5, 2004, 08:40

I can remember the day when the sound of the Emergency Broadcast System warning tone made my blood run cold. When I was a baby my parents kept a stroller packed with emergency supplies and had a plan on which fallout shelter they would try to meet at if they could. MAD served a purpose, albiet at a terrible price. Putin, Bush, and the other nuclear powers should do whatever it takes to prevent a return to those days.

If this is just a test, then fine. If this is a return to Russian nuclear posturing, then the world has just become a much more dangerous place to live. Putin needs to be loud and clear on what the goal is here.

Spiffor · February 5, 2004, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
If this is just a test, then fine. If this is a return to Russian nuclear posturing, then the world has just become a much more dangerous place to live. Putin needs to be loud and clear on what the goal is here.

But I think the main goal is to sway voters in his favour. For the MAD to start again, Russia would need to be strategically at odds with the US, and we're still far from it. Besides, Putin changes strategic plans quite easily (there was a time he asked if he could enter NATO, there was a time he was all lovelove with Bush, we are leaving the period of his lovelove with Chirac). So far, I don't think we risk coming back to MAD anytime soon. For this, Russia would have to be an expanding power, and we have still time before it.

Serb · February 6, 2004, 23:30

Nuke US, make it better place,
For you and for me and for everyone else.

Serb · February 6, 2004, 23:31

Blame Lancer.
He started this war. I had no choice, but to make a call to Putin.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 00:37

I had what I thought was a good question for The Vagabond, but I can't recall what it was.

The Vagabond · February 7, 2004, 00:48

Bring it on, NYE.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 00:54

It wasn't combative or anything like that. No need to get suited up.

It was something along the lines of who it is that Russia may feel threatened by, and why do Russians feel threatened?

I am familiar with the line of argument that the Soviet Empire in Europe was more for defensive purposes than offensive, and I can see that from the POV of the average Russian who had survived one or two invasions in recent memory, or their children.

I am wondering about today though, and why the need is felt to maintain the Strategic Forces at anything other than a fraction of what they used to be.

The Vagabond · February 7, 2004, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I am wondering about today though, and why the need is felt to maintain the Strategic Forces at anything other than a fraction of what they used to be.

They are already a fraction of what they used to be. Perhaps not yet as small a fraction as you would like them to be, but still a fraction.

On the other hand, what do you think such a fraction should be? How do you determine how much is enough?

You see, it's very unlikely that nukes will ever be used. Therefore, their impact basically reduces to a psychological effect, but a very important psychlogical effect, especially for present-day Russia, which is deficient in many other important fields, including the conventional military. The size of the effect has someting to do with the size of the arsenal.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 01:49

NYE, the "west". It has been known to have no moral qualms in furthering its interests through blood if it can find a weakness. Kind of like a rat really.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 01:58

*singing

Nuke the west,
Make it better place,
Let us work together,
To stop this menace...

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:06

Nice, it rhymes

The Orthodox Axis always has its charm

However, even better would be a Russia - EU. Both benefit.
Besides the "West" has been minimized to US/UK now

(sorry canada doesn't count NYE)

Serb · February 7, 2004, 02:10

Just imagine M. Jackson singing his "Heal the World" song with my text.

The Orthodox Axis-

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond

They are already a fraction of what they used to be. Perhaps not yet as small a fraction as you would like them to be, but still a fraction.

On the other hand, what do you think such a fraction should be? How do you determine how much is enough?

You see, it's very unlikely that nukes will ever be used. Therefore, their impact basically reduces to a psychological effect, but a very important psychlogical effect, especially for present-day Russia, which is deficient in many other important fields, including the conventional military. The size of the effect has someting to do with the size of the arsenal.

You didn't answer the real question though. Who is threatening Russia, and why do Russians feel threatened?

I am genuinely curious.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
NYE, the "west". It has been known to have no moral qualms in furthering its interests through blood if it can find a weakness. Kind of like a rat really.

Like anybody else, including Greeks, my fine, furry, friend.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:15

Gotta love NYE

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Gotta love NYE

Now, I never expected to hear that.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:16

That was a cross post. But since NYE's post includes admittance of the abovementioned proposition let it stand as it is

Serb · February 7, 2004, 02:18

Quote:

You didn't answer the real question though. Who is threatening Russia, and why do Russians feel threatened?

I am genuinely curious.

Who?
The country that started its crusade for oil and other natural resources remained on this planet.

Why?
Because we have sh!tloads of such resources...including uranium.

So, come and get us.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:19

You expect the liberal democracies of the world to not claw and cling for survival when directly challenged? You show a remarkable ability for naivete.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:21

On the contrary, I just say it like it is. Notice the word "interest", not "survival". And I wouldn't generalize it to include all liberal democracies.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Who?
The country that started its crusade for oil and other natural resources remained on this planet.

Why?
Because we have sh!tloads of such resources...including uranium.

So, come and get us.

Sorry to disappoint, but nobody I know of wants to come and get anything. OTOH, if you want to sell something, I am sure there will be buyers.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
On the contrary, I just say it like it is. Notice the word "interest", not "survival". And I wouldn't generalize it to include all liberal democracies.

From 1950 to 1990 or so, our interests were survival. You're a bit slow if you hadn't caught that by now.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 02:24

Quote:

Sorry to disappoint, but nobody I know of wants to come and get anything. OTOH, if you want to sell something, I am sure there will be buyers.

I'm not surprised, since you don't have friends in Bush's gang... I mean Bush's administration.

Bereta_Eder · February 7, 2004, 02:24

NYE, I think you're delluding yourself if you think it was.

Lancer · February 7, 2004, 02:24

Huh Spiffor... I'd heard that in the heart of every Frenchman is a yearning for imperialism, but I never guessed it was true until I read your posts...

Yet it makes sense. You percieve the US as being imperialist, and envy it, and so jealosy makes you hate us!

Explains alot...

Anyway, we're not imperialist, but are merely trying to selflessly create a better world.

Btw, all your bases are belong to us.