Questions For Our Russian Friends

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

In the circumstances,You'd think Russia would be looking to make friends in the West,Instead of the opposite.

Except that Russia has always been very paranoid about the West, sometimes with good reason. In the last couple of centuries they've had both Napoleon and Hitler roll in on them, in the latter case with truly disastrous consequences.

I don't see them changing their attitude anytime soon.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In order to do that, Russia would need to guarantee secure property rights to her citizens - none of this Yukos shit, where the state can take anything it covets. Otherwise, investment and development will not start, and all retained profits will continue forever to migrate outwards to places where the Russian government cannot lay hands on them.

As long as Russia continues to adhere to its apparent cultural love of "strongman" governments we won't be seeing the sort of reforms necessary to promote individual initiative and economic growth.

Again, look to history, as the various peoples in the West gradually unshackled themselves from the mandates and desires of their various kings and emperors, Russia remained locked in the bondage of czars and serfdom, and when change finally came it wasn't democracy that reigned triumphant, it was ultimately another strongman who made Ivan the Terrible look like a piker when it came to oppressing the populace.

Originally Posted by Botelio

Lay people talk too much about nuclear weapons. In war games, usually, it’s the politicians and diplomats who want to start nuclear armageddon. The military tries to avoid to the maximum. Nuclear weapons follow the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction. In other words, the idea is that nobody will use them, because a relatively small nuclear war, for example, between India and Pakistan, is enough to destroy the Earth. Not because of the radiation itself, but because of the atmospheric consequences. And this is much more real than a nuclear war between US/NATO and Russia. The point is that having 7000 or 100 nuclear weapons doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.

I must beg to differ. One must always ponder the unthinkable. To pretend that nuclear weapons exist solely to maintain the strategy of MAD is to stick one's head in the sand. Many are guilty of this today.


At one time it was unthinkable that Rome would ever fall to barbarians, yet one day in 1453 the last Constantine's head was stuck on a pole as Ottoman forces plundered the bejeweled city of Constantinople, and the last of the Roman light went out of the world.

Would that last Roman emperor have dropped a nuke on those rampaging Ottomans if he had one? You bet.

It was also unthinkable that a madman would seize power in Germany in 1933 and plunge the world into war and murder millions of people in concentration camps. Yet this also came to pass. And if he had got the bomb first and finished his transatlantic bomber you can be sure that places like New York and Washington would have become smoldering radioactive ruins. Fortunately a lot of the best qualified people to build the bomb were Jews, and some of those were smart enough to get out while the getting was good.

There WILL be atomic mushroom clouds rising into the sky again someday - it is just a question of when.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by Botelio

Please do check the other stuff I wrote. This strategy to get one point to dismiss the totality of what someone is saying is very Soviet school. I'm used to. Please destroy all my other arguments with facts, but please don't do this.

Well yes but that's not what occurred in this case. You made a quite outrageous accusation which was proven to be an example of demonizing 101, whether or not you intended it. You should have fact checked it because the fact that you didn't, raises the bar on your other arguments. The burden of proof for those rests with you not with others. Please do your research properly.

[Botelio]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Well yes but that's not what occurred in this case. You made a quite outrageous accusation which was proven to be an example of demonizing 101, whether or not you intended it. You should have fact checked it because the fact that you didn't, raises the bar on your other arguments. The burden of proof for those rests with you not with others. Please do your research properly.

Well, it isn't demonizing 101. Please: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/artic...7-28d0498c8d56 .

In Russian, since I suppose you're Russian (other friends can use Google Translator):

https://www.hrw.org/ru/news/2017/01/23/299223

Even the Russian Ministry of Interior:

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1963761/

https://www.svoboda.org/a/28926810.html

So, with all due respect, it's not demonizing. It's a real problem.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Botelio

In Russian, since I suppose you're Russian (other friends can use Google Translator):

https://www.hrw.org/ru/news/2017/01/23/299223

In English please, not Russian. If you insist on posting a Russian language source, you can use the Google Translator, if you please.

[Botelio]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

I must beg to differ. One must always ponder the unthinkable. To pretend that nuclear weapons exist solely to maintain the strategy of MAD is to stick one's head in the sand. Many are guilty of this today.

There WILL be atomic mushroom clouds rising into the sky again someday - it is just a question of when.

Well, the main purpose is MAD, although the smallest nuclear head is more or less equivalent to the strongest non-nuclear bom, what might blur the lines. Also, the Russian strategy of escalate to descalate, if employed, might result in the USA overreacting and then we'll have a problem. I hope the Russian commanders will prefer General Slipchenko's non-contact 6th Generation Warfare by conventional means.

Although I agree that anythig can happen, I want to believe there WON'T be atomic mushrooms. They might destroy the planet because of atmospheric consequences, as I mentioned before.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Botelio

Well, the main purpose is MAD, although the smallest nuclear head is more or less equivalent to the strongest non-nuclear bom, what might blur the lines. Also, the Russian strategy of escalate to descalate, if employed, might result in the USA overreacting and then we'll have a problem. I hope the Russian commanders will prefer General Slipchenko's non-contact 6th Generation Warfare by conventional means.

Although I agree that anythig can happen, I want to believe there WON'T be atomic mushrooms. They might destroy the planet because of atmospheric consequences, as I mentioned before.

Wanting to believe is the problem. We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, though that would be very nice. And the technology and know-how has been gradually spreading. There are more people that have the bomb now than had it during the Cold War. It's quite scary to contemplate the idea that there are all sorts of people out there now who don't like us, who might gain access to the Bomb.

I have a sneaking feeling that before the next century turns we will see a terrorist-built nuke go off in Washington, or New York, or London.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Wanting to believe is the problem. We can't uninvent nuclear weapons, though that would be very nice. And the technology and know-how has been gradually spreading. There are more people that have the bomb now than had it during the Cold War. It's quite scary to contemplate the idea that there are all sorts of people out there now who don't like us, who might gain access to the Bomb.

I have a sneaking feeling that before the next century turns we will see a terrorist-built nuke go off in Washington, or New York, or London.

You left out Moscow, Istanbul, Mumbai and New Delhi, all of which have their enemies and have been subjected to terrorist attacks.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

You left out Moscow, Istanbul, Mumbai and New Delhi, all of which have their enemies and have been subjected to terrorist attacks.

^ Quite true. Being the provincial swine that I am, however, I would be a lot less concerned if one of those cities went up in smoke rather than one in my own country.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

^ Quite true. Being the provincial swine that I am, however, I would be a lot less concerned if one of those cities went up in smoke rather than one in my own country.

I think we can most of us agree that it would be quite a pity if Moscow went up in flames; most unfortunate.

I should be sincerely sorry to see my neighbors' children devoured by wolves. ~ Waldo Lydecker Laura 1944.

[haroldeye]

I am quite happy not to see any city turned into a mushroom shaped cloud.