Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The ability to eliminate an enemy's ability to retaliate breaks MAD. I was demonstrating that they couldn't do this, therefore MAD is unbroken, therefore our nuclear strategic position vis-a-vis Russia is no different than our position vis-a-vis China or even France. Russia has no global strategic relevance apart from its nuclear arsenal. Therefore, Russia is at most as globally relevant as China or France.

Which sentence does not follow from the previous?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Can you read? Do you understand that my point has been from the beginning that MAD is valid?

And that's irrelevant.

The world has been on the brink even though MAD was in effect.

Your insistance that MAD is valid is unhelpful. It is not worth arguing since no-one disputes it.

The issue is what to do with Ivan, who has considerably more hitting power than France or China, and whether we should treat their concerns with respect or simply dismiss them as 'just another France.'

On the issue, you have demonstrated a foolishness that is astounding.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which sentence does not follow from the previous?

To start with, neither France nor China possess the ability for total destruction of significant life on this planet.

Including them in the equation with the US and Russia is... sorry... simply profoundly ignorant.

[Kuciwalker]

The world has been on the brink even though MAD was in effect.

So?

Your insistance that MAD is valid is unhelpful. It is not worth arguing since no-one disputes it.

You were confused enough to try to do so earlier.

The issue is what to do with Ivan, who has considerably more hitting power than France or China, and whether we should treat their concerns with respect or simply dismiss them as 'just another France.'

In our calculus it really doesn't make a difference if the result is 90% dead or 95%.

On the issue, you have demonstrated a foolishness that is astounding.

You have demonstrated an inability to give any argument beyond "my opponent is a fool" and "I'm old."

Pick a step in my argument that isn't valid or sound, or go away and admit you're full of ****.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
To start with, neither France nor China possess the ability for total destruction of significant life on this planet.

Including them in the equation with the US and Russia is... sorry... simply profoundly ignorant.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In our calculus it really doesn't make a difference if the result is 90% dead or 95% [in the United States].

[Kuciwalker]

We have demonstrated a reluctance to do something if it would cost us even one city.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The world has been on the brink even though MAD was in effect.

So?

Your insistance that MAD is valid is unhelpful. It is not worth arguing since no-one disputes it.

You were confused enough to try to do so earlier.

The issue is what to do with Ivan, who has considerably more hitting power than France or China, and whether we should treat their concerns with respect or simply dismiss them as 'just another France.'

In our calculus it really doesn't make a difference if the result is 90% dead or 95%.

On the issue, you have demonstrated a foolishness that is astounding.

You have demonstrated an inability to give any argument beyond "my opponent is a fool" and "I'm old."

Pick a step in my argument that isn't valid or sound, or go away and admit you're full of ****.

Neither China, nor France, nor any other boggey man you may wish to create, have more than a small persentage of the hitting power of Russia.

Your dragging them in here is simply further exposure of your nakedness.

Quit while you're behind.

[Kuciwalker]

They have enough to deter us, obviously. Virtually no course of action becomes preferable when only a hundred million die instead of two hundred ninety. You're the one creating a bogeyman out of a power that's been irrelevant for more than a decade.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We have demonstrated a reluctance to do something if it would cost us even one city.

You're psychology is irrelevant, and besides, you are simply wrong on the historical record. Kennedy was willing to fire, be fired on, and go nuclear over a threat that got too close.

What do you think the Russians are looking at with NATO bases in the Baltic and Caucasus and anti missile bases in Eastern Europe?

They are telling us to back off. Should we talk to them, or treat them like France?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're psychology is irrelevant, and besides, you are simply wrong on the historical record. Kennedy was willing to fire, be fired on, and go nuclear over a threat that got too close.

Kennedy died 45 years ago.

What do you think the Russians are looking at with NATO bases in the Baltic and Caucasus and anti missile bases in Eastern Europe?

Strategic pressure far less than we've put on them before.

They are telling us to back off. Should we talk to them, or treat them like France?

Treat them like France. Those countries don't want to be tools of Russia; they don't deserve to be abandoned to it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They have enough to deter us, obviously. Virtually no course of action becomes preferable when only a hundred million die instead of two hundred ninety. You're the one creating a bogeyman out of a power that's been irrelevant for more than a decade.

Neither China nor France, nor Great Britain has ever figured in MAD. Simply because they lack the power for the AD.

MAD is a concept that exists precisely because of two powers. The US and USSR/Russia. Other countires have deterents. They can hurt you. They cannot destroy you (the entire West or all of Russia). Either the US or Russia could thoroughly destroy an entire country or the entire planet. The other nuclear powers are not relevant to the discussion of MAD simply because they lack the ability for total destruction.

[Kuciwalker]

Neither China nor France, nor Great Britain has ever figured in MAD. Simply because they lack the power for the AD.

Why do you think they have nukes, then? Why do third-world countries think nukes make them immune? Because we aren't willing to tolerate even a few nukes hitting us, let alone a hundred.

(by the way, the 'A' in MAD stands for "Assured"; any country with ICBM's can certainly assure they'll hit the target, and has the 'A' at least. I assume you mistook it for "Absolute".)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Kennedy died 45 years ago.

And? He was willing to launch over perceived dangers and perceptions of what had to be done. He had far less reason to be defensive than any occupant of the Kremlin could be imagined to have.

Why antagonise the country that can match the US for destructive power when they are so close to crossing the aisle and joining Europe, but also still very nervous?

Chauvinism because you can? Ignorance of the consequences?

[DinoDoc]

when they are so close to crossing the aisle and joining Europe

Bull****.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Neither China nor France, nor Great Britain has ever figured in MAD. Simply because they lack the power for the AD.

Why do you think they have nukes, then? Why do third-world countries think nukes make them immune? Because we aren't willing to tolerate even a few nukes hitting us, let alone a hundred.

'You' aren't.

You are assuming a lot on the part of Russians, and Chinese, and Iranians.

(by the way, the 'A' in MAD stands for "Assured"; any country with ICBM's can certainly assure they'll hit the target, and has the 'A' at least. I assume you mistook it for "Absolute".)

Considering you have little clue about how MAD woirks, instead claiming to argue for half the threat that it's being overcome was the goal of the Russians, I find it very odd that you pretend to lecture on what the terms mean.

And then there's your insistence that France be counted in the same league as the Russians when it comes to the subject. This is a pretty funny lecture.

Go on, junior. Learn me.