NationStates Jolt Archive

On Sept. 13, he announced a plan to eliminate the general election of regional governors and of independent seats in parliament, essentially removing the last real checks on his personal dominion over the largest nation on Earth.

Kinda explains why Bush and Putin are all buddy-buddy, after all like attracts like.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-putin19sep19,1,1418022.story?coll=la-home-world

But I thought Bush had looked into Putin's eyes and understood his soul? Maybe he did at that.

Maybe the US should consider invading Russia to bring 'freedom&democracy' to Russia?Yes, they actually should. Since the US can't even get a smalland defenseless country like Iraq under control, I would love to see what would happen then.

Yes, they actually should. Since the US can't even get a smalland defenseless country like Iraq under control, I would love to see what would happen then.
Yeah, I'd like to see us invade a country that actually has WMDs.

The term M.A.D. comes to mind here. :D

Yeah, I'd like to see us invade a country that actually has WMDs.

The term M.A.D. comes to mind here. :D
Dont forget that in the MADness of chaos the Chechen extremists will probably seize a good few nukes.

Dont forget that in the MADness of chaos the Chechen extremists will probably seize a good few nukes.
Man, that ain't even funny.

Wait! The former head of the KGB is authoritarian? Like hell you say!

yeh but how wud they launch them? All this talk of the Us invading russia perfecly describes how arrorgant and screwed up the US is.(Offense meant to be caused)

Yeah, I'd like to see us invade a country that actually has WMDs.
The term M.A.D. comes to mind here. :D
The United States is not mad. It wouldn´t do it. One of the facts that North Korea is very secure is the fact that it is having nukes (1-2 confirmed, estimated 5-6).
Aside of the fact that Russia is an ally in the war against terrorism.

The United States is not mad. It wouldn´t do it. One of the facts that North Korea is very secure is the fact that it is having nukes (1-2 confirmed, estimated 5-6).
Aside of the fact that Russia is an ally in the war against terrorism.


The term M.A.D. means Mutually Assured Destruction. Meaning in a war between the US and Russia, neither side would win, because we'd all die.

yeh but how wud they launch them? All this talk of the Us invading russia perfecly describes how arrorgant and screwed up the US is.(Offense meant to be caused)
Don't have to launch them when you can change them into suitcase bombs and smuggle them in to wherever you want to set them off.

And the original post was sarcastic. You might want to get used to that around here.

The term M.A.D. means Mutually Assured Destruction. Meaning in a war between the US and Russia, neither side would win, because we'd all die.
I wasn´t aware of the meaning of the abreviation but I´m of course aware of that concept. I think without it there would have been a hot World War III (and not a Cold War with a few hot proxy wars). Though in 1962 the world was close to it.
We are currently in a development of the spread of WMD to more and more countries. That could lead to a new Cold War with terrorism and counter-terrorism as proxy wars. The US goverment tries to prevent it by preventive strikes. Though in the case of North Korea it is already to late for that and Iran is close to, or proably already across the nuclear barrier. Time is running out for prevention and preventive strike in that case.

I wasn´t aware of the meaning of the abreviation but I´m of course aware of that concept. I think without it there would have been a hot World War III (and not a Cold War with a few hot proxy wars). Though in 1962 the world was close to it.
We are currently in a development of the spread of WMD to more and more countries. That could lead to a new Cold War with terrorism and counter-terrorism as proxy wars. The US goverment tries to prevent it by preventive strikes. Though in the case of North Korea it is already to late for that and Iran is close to, or proably already across the nuclear barrier. Time is running out for prevention and preventive strike in that case.You're absolutely correct that there would have been a shooting WW III without the nuclear deterrent. As it happens, there very nearly was a shooting war over the Cuban Missile crisis.

For another example, look at Pakistan and India. While the dispute over Kashmir still flares up occasionally, the hostilities have basically been reduced to saber-rattling in comparison to the way they were before both countries had nukes.

Sarcasm? isnt this a debate? (Of some form anyway)

its very simple really

the invasion of Iraq cost (realitivly) few lives while bringing democracy and freemdom to many many more

and invasion of russia would be much more costly and the loss of human life would out weight the benifits that freedom would bring to the survivors

You're absolutely correct that there would have been a shooting WW III without the nuclear deterrent. As it happens, there very nearly was a shooting war over the Cuban Missile crisis.
For another example, look at Pakistan and India. While the dispute over Kashmir still flares up occasionally, the hostilities have basically been reduced to saber-rattling in comparison to the way they were before both countries had nukes.
We could have a theoretical discussion why wars break out. But one reason certainly is the assessment that one country thinks that the other is weak or at least weaker than itself.
Germany correctly assessed the weakness of Poland in 1939 and the weakness of France due to internal disputes between its socialists-communists government and the opposition and between those factions. And it was successful in neutralising the Soviet Union due to the Non-Agression pact of 1939 (which included the division of Eastern Europe).
So, as hard as it sounds: also dictators act - in their way- rational. The Soviets were rational as well.
If we follow that theory a policy of strength would be the best policy for self-defense. Preventive strikes wouldn´t be needed. The problem however is terrorism. Terrorists don´t need to take care of anything. So, the question is what can be done against them, especially to make sure that rogue states don´t hand WMD to them.
On the other hand: if a country has WMDs - especially nukes- it is unreasonable and too risky to attack it. So, we are in a dilemma.

its very simple really
the invasion of Iraq cost (realitivly) few lives while bringing democracy and freemdom to many many more

One question would be whether it can really bring that to Iraq. General Abizaid himself has spoken about a guerilla war situation. The last time the US was in such a situation was in Vietnam.
So, obviously a new approach is needed. I don´t have an answer to it, admittedly. But firstly it would be the assessment that any country has its own dynamic. It is just not that easy to put down one thing to get a certain result. Reality is more complex.
A common enemy of the US and Iraq would also help - that helped in Japan and even more in Germany.
Theoretically Iran could play that role. Though the problem is that many factions in Iraq are influenced by Iran.

All I can say is that a fight with russia would be a complete and total nightmare, and thats my opinion as a soldier. They threw men at germany like a never-ending tide, to die by the millions. They could do it again...and with similiar results (although the winter wouldn't kill us as bad. Cold-weather gear is standard issue in some places)

I for one would NOT like the idea...

Well, its important to keep in mind the differences between the current russia, and the USSR of WWII. Although I too would hate to go to war with them the fact is that they don't have nearly the kinds of numbers in their military as they used to. The big difference here would be that all of the russians in the military would have a gun this time (not so during WWI, remember Stalingrad?).

The fact is the U.S. would win in the end (or we'd be a nation of plate glass) but the training that the U.S. soldier has is far above and beyond that of the Russian Soldier. Even our National Guard is better trained than most countries' regulars.

Is it doable? Yes. Do I want any part of it? No.

-PM