The Nobel Peace prize goes to Barack Obama

[213374U]

Moscow has consistently said that the missile defense was a threat to their national security. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but they did perceive it as a threat.

Which is total bollocks. With the fall of communism, the Cold War nuclear standoff is gone. As long as Russia doesn't plan to swarm Europe with tank waves, they don't need to fear nuclear strikes, so their own need for a global retaliation capability is tenuous at best.

 

I'd say that what they really are worried about is the possibility that their strategic arsenal may be rendered obsolete by the missile shield. They would have to embark on the good ol' arms race again, in order to keep a credible nuclear deterrent. The last arms race bankrupted the USSR, so it's understandable they are reluctant to go at it again, and against the winner of the last one, no less. But old habits die hard and nobody likes losing their superpower status.

[Purkake]

The nukes(and what rusty tanks they have left) are pretty much all that keeps Russia somewhat relevant in the global scale. Obviously they will cling to them instead of laying down and fading to obscurity.

[213374U]

What?

 

Russia's influence doesn't stem from their military might nowadays. It's their oil and gas what counts.

 

And the T-90 is a pretty good tank, btw.

[Gorgon]

Those tanks weren't that great to begin with, they just built more of them than anyone had ever done before.

[lord of flies]

But the Japanese regime did want war. They invaded to Korea and Manchuria to 'protect' them from colonial powers, well knowing that that was exactly what they were themselves. Unless you buy into their propaganda, but I don't think any reasonably intelligent person ever has.

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

[Purkake]

What?

 

Russia's influence doesn't stem from their military might nowadays. It's their oil and gas what counts.

 

And the T-90 is a pretty good tank, btw.

 

They need to sell that oil as much as the countries buying it need it, if not more.

[Maria Caliban]

Moscow has consistently said that the missile defense was a threat to their national security. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but they did perceive it as a threat.

Then they should do something about Iran, instead of aiding and abetting them.

 

International diplomacy would be much easier if everyone had the game goals and outlook as the US. But they don

[Wrath of Dagon]

Moscow has consistently said that the missile defense was a threat to their national security. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but they did perceive it as a threat.

Then they should do something about Iran, instead of aiding and abetting them.

 

International diplomacy would be much easier if everyone had the game goals and outlook as the US. But they don

[HoonDing]

You make it sound like we were going to install offensive nuclear missiles, the system was purely defensive, and no where near sufficient to stop the Russian nuclear arsenal. What Russia really wanted to do was to show Poland and the Czechs they're still a force to reckon with, even though those countries joined NATO. Putin is going to try to restore the Russian Empire as far as the West lets him, and so far he doesn't have much of an opposition.

I think Putin was mostly wary that the missile 'defense' system would accidentally manage to malfunction (highly likely, since it wasn't made in Germany or Japan) & all those nice defensive rockets/missiles would come plummeting down on Russian cities.

[lord of flies]

Sorry, I didn

[Gorgon]

But the consequence of use is always there in the back of the decision makers' minds, that's the whole idea behind calling it the ultimate deterrent. It's why everyone wants them.

 

I don't think Johnson or Nixon would have be as meticulous in their political signaling, or been as reluctant to engage the north without it.

[213374U]

Because nuclear weapons aren't useful.

Not useful in the limited, theatre, strategic scales or not at all?

 

It's hard to argue that they aren't strategically useful, what with military doctrine of the second half of the 20th century growing around the concept of deterrence.

 

Just because they weren't used it doesn't mean they aren't useful. Fleet in being?

[Walsingham]

But the Japanese regime did want war. They invaded to Korea and Manchuria to 'protect' them from colonial powers, well knowing that that was exactly what they were themselves. Unless you buy into their propaganda, but I don't think any reasonably intelligent person ever has.

The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it.

 

ROFLMAO

 

I'm not going to spoil the perfection of this hilarious statement by probing the rationale.

[alanschu]

I'm going to tell you a secret... no they haven't. Korea and Vietnam, bitch.

 

Those weren't open conflicts against the Soviet Union.

[Guard Dog]

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

 

I know I'm going to regret this because engaging you in any serious discussion is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience, but I betting you would be one of the ones to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. I'm curious, do you think Nixon would have been justified in attacking OPEC nations in 1973? Or would Carter have been justified for attacking Iran in 1979?

[alanschu]

I think it's more that LoF has gotten so used to slamming that US that he'd rather support the justifications of a decidedly more fascist nation like Imperial Japan.

[Gorgon]

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

 

I know I'm going to regret this because engaging you in any serious discussion is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience, but I betting you would be one of the ones to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. I'm curious, do you think Nixon would have been justified in attacking OPEC nations in 1973? Or would Carter have been justified for attacking Iran in 1979?

 

 

 

... or Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003.

 

*Ba-dum Tish*

Edited October 12, 2009 by Gorgon

[I want teh kotor 3]

Because nuclear weapons aren't useful.

 

No. They aren't used, because the international community collectively opposes them, and goes all "how dare you" whenever they're even mentioned, to say nothing of used.

 

But the Japanese regime did want war. They invaded to Korea and Manchuria to 'protect' them from colonial powers, well knowing that that was exactly what they were themselves. Unless you buy into their propaganda, but I don't think any reasonably intelligent person ever has.

The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it.

 

ROFLMAO

 

I'm not going to spoil the perfection of this hilarious statement by probing the rationale.

 

What Wals said.

Edited October 12, 2009 by I want teh kotor 3

[Guard Dog]

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

 

I know I'm going to regret this because engaging you in any serious discussion is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience, but I betting you would be one of the ones to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. I'm curious, do you think Nixon would have been justified in attacking OPEC nations in 1973? Or would Carter have been justified for attacking Iran in 1979?

 

 

 

... or Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003.

 

*Ba-dum Tish*

Apples and Oranges and you know it.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

 

I know I'm going to regret this because engaging you in any serious discussion is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience, but I betting you would be one of the ones to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. I'm curious, do you think Nixon would have been justified in attacking OPEC nations in 1973? Or would Carter have been justified for attacking Iran in 1979?

 

 

 

... or Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003.

 

*Ba-dum Tish*

 

 

Completely different. Iraq was believed to have WMDs, and was known to be anti-US. Plus, we had just been attacked, and Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

[Purkake]

So attacking Iraq was justified?

 

This is getting more hilarious by the minute.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Purkake

[Guard Dog]

So attacking Iraq was justified?

 

This is getting more hilarious by the minute.

Not justified, different from what we were discussing.

[Purkake]

I wanted mr Kotor to answer, now you ruined it.

[Pidesco]

Completely different. Iraq was believed to have WMDs, and was known to be anti-US. Plus, we had just been attacked, and Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

 

 

Iraq having WMDs was a an actual lie, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and Iraq has never attacked the US. Also, the US's most dangerous enemy in the Middle East was and is Iran. The only power in the region capable of opposing Iran was Iraq, except of course, that after the invasion Iraq is now a hotbed for American hatred, with the Iraqi Shi'ites waiting to take control as soon as possible. So, in all likelihood, a few years, instead of there being one major country controlled by extremist, fundamentalist America hating Shi'ites there will be two countries: Iran and Iraq. Hooray for America.

 

So, not only was the Iraq invasion an unprovoked attack, it was also a really, really stupid and badly managed attack.

[I want teh kotor 3]

So attacking Iraq was justified?

 

This is getting more hilarious by the minute.

 

I wouldn't say "justified" but I also wouldn't say "unprovoked."

 

Completely different. Iraq was believed to have WMDs, and was known to be anti-US. Plus, we had just been attacked, and Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

 

 

Iraq having WMDs was a an actual lie, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and Iraq has never attacked the US. Also, the US's most dangerous enemy in the Middle East was and is Iran. The only power in the region capable of opposing Iran was Iraq, except of course, that after the invasion Iraq is now a hotbed for American hatred, with the Iraqi Shi'ites waiting to take control as soon as possible. So, in all likelihood, a few years, instead of there being one major country controlled by extremist, fundamentalist America hating Shi'ites there will be two countries: Iran and Iraq. Hooray for America.

 

I highly doubt that Saddam never had any relation with Al-Qaeda. Israel, lest we forget, still exists, and, for the moment at least, can still oppose Iran. Iraq was never friendly with the US anyway, so no love lost there.

 

So, not only was the Iraq invasion an unprovoked attack, it was also a really, really stupid and badly managed attack.

 

I agree that it was badly managed, and probably in the long run not the brightest idea.

Edited October 12, 2009 by I want teh kotor 3