Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cold War II. Russia to play next
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Oh, the Irony of that last sentence........
Am I the only one who is beginning to think we might be having a visit from one of those profesional shills the Putin has been caught employing?
Last edited:
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
How does one "win" an arms race?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Anyway, I think The Atheist's original point is interesting. We're witnessing a series of moves and counter-moves that will undoubtedly lead somewhere exciting. Hopefully it will only be as exciting as a restructuring of the current detente, or possibly even a rapprochement on some points of contention; rather than as exciting as an escalation to a full-blown Cold War, complete with the constant threat of MAD, violent proxy conflicts around the globe.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
One would hope so, this is a skeptics forum after all, but going by the last time you've asked: no, you're not.
It was brought up because their seems (or seemed) to be a rather silly, naive belief that the cold war must have disappeared along with the Berlin Wall. It didn't. There was a period of transition where Russian attention was focused inwards and then Russia resumed a course that would be understandable to anyone who was familiar with 18th, 19th or 20th century history. It seems to show a silly belief that we humans have, globally, moved on from the immature power-mongering of the past.
Here's another quote (this time from Kerry) that it may also be relevant to mock:
"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext."
Of course the answer is: You can do that just as much in the 21st century as in the 19th... as in; you can do it if you can get away with it. And in the 21st century, getting away with it means: 'will the USA stop you?'.
All those who complain about the USA's role in world affairs should ponder this. Not all countries are N. American/W. European democracies with prosperity and a free press. There are authoritarian states with significant power and still others with long standing grudges... they are held in check by the USA enforcing the current international norms. When, or if, the USA either declines in relative power, or enters an isolationist phase, the World is going to revert to 19th century norms pretty fast.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Have better strength of arms than the other racers, at any point in the race where a test of arms is made.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
But that's the point, there are no "tests of arms" between nuclear superpowers. There are proxy conflicts where they get used, but having 4000 tanks or 5000 tanks sitting at home doesn't really make the difference there. It's all wasted money mostly, neither NATO or Russia are going to invade each other given the nuclear detente that exists between them.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And yet throughout the cold war, right up to the present day, the US and Russia still develop new weapon systems intended to give strategic and tactical advantage over their nuclear-armed adversaries.
Even now there is an ongoing arms race between Russia and the US, where Russia continues to develop ever more advanced generations of anti-ship missiles, and the US continues to develop ever more advanced generations of naval air defense systems. A similar race is going on with China.
Anyway, I'll concede the point that nobody really "wins" an arms race. I do still believe, however, that while Russia would be ecstatic if the US Navy suddenly stopped improving its air defense systems, they would also be quite happy if their economy could afford continuous improvements to their anti-ship weapons, such that they were always once step ahead of America's latest defenses.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
True, but that's a technological arms race. The term "arms race" is usually understood as both sides trying to build and field more weapon systems than the other side. ETA: or at least it has that connotation in context of a "Cold War".
Last edited:
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,927
Easy.
Whether you or I think it's provocation, it's an easy sell to Russia.
If you prefer, I'd go with "playing directly into Putin's hands".
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are the only one.
Every story has two sides, and it is absolutely correct to explore the idea that NATO/US is not 100% correct in this situation.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
If you say so. That's never been how I understood it, though. I'm also not sure that's how NATO viewed their chances of success in an actual conflict with the Warsaw Pact. Quantity has a quality all its own, but I doubt it was ever thought that the only way to compete in an arms race was to simply have more arms. Certainly US weapons development over the past fifty years or more seems to be founded on the principle of seeking a technological advantage first, and a numerical advantage second (if at all).
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Don't take a stand against the tyrant, McHrozni! That's exactly what he wants! The only way you can win this is just to let him do his thing unopposed.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Or rather whether they even get close to being 50% correct.
No.
There are good guys and bad guys.
Putin is hitler.
Obama is chamberlain.
Assad never was, and we must help the brave ISIS freedom fighters. (By showing him how wrong it is to kill civilians by killing some of his civilians)
MacArthur was the bestest general ever! Look what a great job he did in Korea! It would have been a cakewalk if we had allowed him in 1945 to nuke russia and end that commie crazieness once and for all.
Churchill has not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire
bit_pattern
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,406
Ideologies come and go but geostrategic realities don't change all that much. What amuses me though is when people frame geostrategic rivalries as "good guy vs bad guy", or argue that power projection results from some kind of national character flaw. It takes a special kind of indoctrination to buy into the notion that the "we" are the "good guys" fighting nobly against the swarthy other. All powers play the great game, notions of the just and the right really don't factor into the equation.
Last edited:
I can interpret any action, including complete inaction, as "playing directly into Putin's hands". That really doesn't do anything, does it.
Putin invaded a country Russia explicitly guaranteed border soverignty and called massive exercises on the border of a NATO ally he considers Russian territory. NATO has to respond to that. It should respond more forcefuly, if anything.
Ukraine situation is bad, but it could be used to remind Russians war is about dead and maimed sons, not glory and territorial conquest. They seem to have forgotten that.
McHrozni
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,927
One death is tragedy, one million deaths is statistic.
I think Putin thinks the same way as his [figurative] uncle, Man of Steel.
Obviously. That's why they started all these invasions after WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Didn't they censor pictures of coffins in their last 2 invasions?
Last edited:
That he does. He's a dangerous man that will need to be stopped eventually. I'd rather try to stop in Donbass than in Brandenburg, thank you very much.
McHrozni