Putin warns on U.S. missiles in Europe

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And then there are Russian boomers, and mobile strategic rockets, and aircraft that could be anywhere with payload.

Except that most of Russia's mobile rocket forces haven't actually been mobile for a long time. And USN >> VMF.

A first strike is unthinkable, and has been for a very long time.

Except within the past decade it's become within the range of possibility - for the US.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Oh no, please not this BS again...

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that the US is the enemy of Russia and if it keeps the Russian people's mind off the internal **** that goes on there than who am I to intrude into the fantasy. The west expects that sort of thing from Iran and other less developed countries but we kind of had higher expectations for Russia. Then again, Russia has always had a complex where the west is concerned and I suppose we expected too much from them.

Originally posted by The Vagabond Perhaps we should disband the Russian Federation in one big bout of guilt?

Well, If a certain group of people don't want to be there than why should you force them to stay other than the desire for power but that is another thread altogether.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except that most of Russia's mobile rocket forces haven't actually been mobile for a long time. And USN >> VMF.

A first strike is unthinkable, and has been for a very long time.

Except within the past decade it's become within the range of possibility - for the US.

Are we gonna do this again?

Do you think the US government would take the chance that a single warhead finds its target in the mainland of the US?

Do you think the US government would take the chance that something goes very wrong with your wet dream and 50 warheads hit the mainland of the US?

Now assume that not a single warhead hits the US, does the US government have some magical ward against the wind, or do you intend to eat anything grown in Idaho after enough nukes hit Russia to make sure nothing hit the US back?

[Kuciwalker]

Strawmen are fun

[notyoueither]

Oh, and for how long do you think the sun would shine to grow that food after the vast expanses of Russia were blown up and the remainder set on fire?

[Kuciwalker]

btw, I challenge your assertion that a crippling first strike would require enough nukes to cause major problem's with the Earth's climate.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Strawmen are fun

It's not a strawman when you yourself claim that it is possible.

It is as unpossible to survive an exchange between Russia and the US as it ever was, even if the other side does nothing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not a strawman when you yourself claim that it is possible.

It is a strawman when I claim "it's technically feasible" and you say "no it's not, it's politically impossible."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
btw, I challenge your assertion that a crippling first strike would require enough nukes to cause major problem's with the Earth's climate.

This I've got to hear.

Go on.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, that was your cue.

Do you have any evidence besides scare stories about nuclear winter you read 20 years ago?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It is a strawman when I claim "it's technically feasible" and you say "no it's not, it's politically impossible."

The strawman is claiming 'technical feasiblity' = possible.

It's been 'technically feasible' to launch first for a very long time.

It still is not 'possible' to win that exchange.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The strawman is claiming 'technical feasiblity' = possible.

Oh? I was under the impression that if something could be done, it was possible, but I guess I was wrong...

It's been 'technically feasible' to launch first for a very long time.

Thank you for conceding

It still is not 'possible' to win that exchange.

Yes it is, by the definition of the game, and you just conceded that. The victory is not certain enough (given the cost of being wrong) for a first strike to be a politically viable strategy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by notyoueither
The strawman is claiming 'technical feasiblity' = possible.

Oh? I was under the impression that if something could be done, it was possible, but I guess I was wrong...

It's been 'technically feasible' to launch first for a very long time.

Thank you for conceding

It still is not 'possible' to win that exchange.

Yes it is, by the definition of the game, and you just conceded that. The victory is not certain enough (given the cost of being wrong) for a first strike to be a politically viable strategy.

What a load of mealy mouthed crap.

First you say that it is 'feasible' and then claim some sort of victory while conceding that it is not a 'politically viable strategy'.

Why would it not be politcally viable?

[Kuciwalker]

I've never claimed it's politically viable, dufus, and I don't care. I claimed victory because you've conceded my only point: it is technically feasible.

[Jon Miller]

The question, would Bush and Company rather rule a messed up US, or not rule at all...

JM