Rayvin
-
Posts
21211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
In order to educate myself, I just looked into the respective nuclear capabilities of the two. Russia apparently has the doomsday weapons; the US response, while assuring destruction, are designed to cause much less significant damage. Russian nukes sound horrifying, the US ones sound tactical. As such, I'm not entirely convinced we'd all die. But again, I don't think it's even remotely likely that this is going to happen, as no one is talking about invasions of either country, and I genuinely don't think either Trump or Putin is about to go nuclear over fucking Syria. EDIT - this isn't the cold war. It isn't a battle of ideologies. It's two countries trying to make their way in the world.
-
Well yes but this is kind of what I mean about this problem lasting for much longer than Trump. To be honest you've been right on the money through this, it seems that irrespective of the administration, the US has a constant stance of provocation towards Russia.
-
Why? Why would they think at all that they're going to be under threat of a nuclear strike? The only way I see nukes coming into it is if the US have literally invaded Russia and are about to take the Kremlin. I mean, are you guys all tapped into Russian high command or something If Russia goes nuclear, the only thing it guarantees is it's own annihilation. The US can shoot down something like 60% of their missiles in mid-air, so they'd literally have to fire everything they've got. And you are suggesting that they might do this based on a conflict in a totally different country?
-
Why? Given the 'mutually assured destruction' component here, why would Putin decide to tank his entire country just because he lost a ground conflict in Syria?
-
Great read that, really interesting. The stones on the guy to go back in the end though...
-
Why would it escalate to nuclear unless either state's border integrity is actually under threat? If they come to blows in Syria, they won't go nuclear. I think we're getting really carried away here Also feel obliged to point out that this wouldn't be happening at all if the non-psychotic Obama and previous administrations hadn't been actively destabilising the ME and keeping up hostilities with Russia.
-
Why do you think Russia wants this war? There is no upside for them. Their economy is already on the ropes, the last thing they need is the entire Western world cutting them off (which is what would happen) and then having to get into a serious fight with the US. Putin would have to prize his own ego far beyond his own people. I suspect the Russians are petrified that they're coming into a situation where they might have to make good on their sabre rattling. They can't touch the US iyam, but the US has encircled them for decades. Europe, agreed, is in trouble. Doubtful the US administration cares too much though if they're prepared to go through with this. Besides, the EU might use this as a unification crisis moment, justifying their EU army. The more I think about this, the more I just can't see how Russia can do anything other than back down here. Ideally the US will be smart enough to let them do so with something that looks vaguely like a win, for selling it to the domestic populace.
-
Aye but there's a difference between 'Best striker we've ever had' and 'Best ever'. Unless you're saying that they genuinely are delusional I guess..?
-
Could be a false flag I suppose. Weird target for one thing.
-
"Best striker I've ever seen"
-
The longer we wait to tackle this, the better their tech will get though. To be honest, China could solve this so much more easily than the US could, but the Chinese government are, unfortunately, cowards (in almost all matters). Kind of agree with Renton that their capabilities should be able to be thwarted if done correctly and with sufficient force. But I think it would be incredibly unsettling for the world, and would represent an entirely irresponsible risk, if the situation escalated to the point where a nuke was fired in anger.
-
I believe they'd be psychotic enough to do that, I just don't know if they'd get the chance. Assuming Trump just attacks out of the blue, they'd flatten Pyongyang wouldn't they? Given that leadership is centralised into such a small group of people, who would call for the nuclear strikes if they cut off the head?
-
That isn't the full equation though - in the scenario we're talking about, where Trump attacks NK, it's a failed state plus war with the US against US ally on their border.
-
What if he actually solves the North Korea issue though
-
NK already is a failed state, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean? If it was absorbed into SK it would be better for China as an economic prospect. I actually think SK has the most to lose here. The last thing they want is millions of NK citizens suddenly becoming their responsibility and tanking their economy. I've heard this said a few times, it's not in SK's interests for this to happen. It is in China's, if they can do it without losing face.
-
I dunno about that... China are no fans of North Korea, considering them to be both an embarrassment and unpredictable. The problem is that China won't want a build up of US forces on their immediate border. But if they handle it like grown ups, China and the US could just pincer NK and get it over with, while preserving the integrity of China's national border. Of course they'd probably turn it into a land grab, but there we go. Still better than the current regime.
-
No, Trump's comments on the arms race were absolutely absurd. Economic sanctions on Russia, and 'diplomatic measures' against them, such as destabilising key allies, are what brought us to this point IMO. The Russian economy is struggling, of course, because of the US. The real question here, IMO, is why the West is so hellbent on provoking Russia at all.
-
I don't think Putin is enjoying this btw. He put heavy faith in a peace process and looking like an international statesmen, and Trump has prevented him from being able to do this now. Given that the Russians thought Trump was going to be a good thing for them, it seems clear that Trump is to Russia what Putin was to the West. An initially positive development that turned sour very quickly.
-
I see So you think Clinton would have backed down in the face of Putin's alpha male persona?
-
Is Trump actually going to solve the NK problem? I mean, is he serious? Fucking hell. Renton, fwiw, if he invades North Korea then I'll agree that he's more likely than Clinton to bring about WW3 One can only hope he has China's backing.
-
Given everything Clinton has said about putting Russia back in their box, I just don't think that's a supportable statement. You're basing this entirely on your 'feeling' that Trump is more likely to take us to war. To say again, as I note it has been entirely unanswered previously, as usual, Trump's response in Syria was less severe than what Clinton was calling for. Which was for all of his airbases to be destroyed. How do you think Russia would have responded to that, exactly?
-
That's quite possibly the most interesting thing I've read on here in some time
-
The video suggests that only about 5 people were involved, and the article mentions it lasted for 2 to 3 stops. Which is about 5 minutes
-
In that case maybe he'll forget that he's president eventually.
-
What exactly is Spicer's background? He looks like a village idiot kind of person. I don't actually understand why Trump, if he knows he's unsuited for this (As he presumably does, deep down) hasn't hired some astoundingly competent people instead of these cretins...
