Yeah still you, seen as you're trying to worm your way out of your own argument by trying to take a more easily defendable stance of which you didn't originally hold. Luckily quotes: Pirating_Ninja said: At least a war with Russia isn't guaranteed to result in nukes. DreamingBeats said: At least a war with Russia isn't guaranteed to result in nukes. >citation needed As in "Show me your evidence where war with Russia won't use nukes" > The cold war is not evidence of this. Don't try to pretend you're talking about escalation when your own quote says war with Russia and you presented as "evidence" that WAR WITH RUSSIA won't use nukes by presenting the cold war as an example. When it wasn't even a war and doesn't aid your original argument in anyway.  |
SpooksOct 24, 2016 7:16 PM
 |
DateYutaka said: Nonsense, by the claim of Trump supporters it only started by as early as Obama. Any type of nuance is irrelevant. Tensions with Russia, The Iraq War, Terrorism, etc., all of that only started with Obama and in large part due to Hilary acting as Secretary of State.Pirating_Ninja said: Yes because after 40 years of escalation, in which much stronger "Anti-Russia" rhetoric was circling around Washington, we STILL never went to war with Russia. Your claim is that Hilary Clinton, whom represents a regime exponentially less hostile than the McCarthy Era, would escalate tensions to an all-out Nuclear war with Russia in a 5th of the time. Who here is playing stupid? Ninja you baffoon [ never a sentance i would ever say thats mal ofr you] the US and UK mucjh less the other eu nation have been stuckon cold war mind set doe at lest 15 years since putin came in power |
 |
DateYutaka said: Obama is supreme leader, and at fault for any and all government actions (if they were negative).Pirating_Ninja said: Nonsense, by the claim of Trump supporters it only started by as early as Obama. Any type of nuance is irrelevant. Tensions with Russia, The Iraq War, Terrorism, etc., all of that only started with Obama and in large part due to Hilary acting as Secretary of State. im talking at the govermnet level |
|
| Jill Stein is an idiot. ...oh shit....I voted for Jill Stein.... |
Spooks said: I'm sorry, but when talking about who is going to escalate into a Nuclear War (i.e. the discussion of this thread), and we are talking about rising tensions with Russia, I think that noting the result of said rising tensions and presenting it as the "war" you are implying will occur is a perfectly valid use of the phrase. At least that is some type of evidence, whereas your "war" is mere speculation.Don't try to pretend you're talking about escalation when your own quote says war with Russia and you presented as "evidence" that WAR WITH RUSSIA won't use nukes by presenting the cold war as an example when it wasn't even a war and doesn't aid your original argument in anyway. DateYutaka said: That was kind of a joke, the joke being that people who are Trump supporters usually pin the blame for anything and everything on Obama as if he is the only one w/ power in the government. Hence it being a response to you talking about on the government level.Pirating_Ninja said: Obama is supreme leader, and at fault for any and all government actions (if they were negative). i hate Obama too for reason stated |
Pirating_NinjaOct 24, 2016 7:28 PM
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Spooks said: I'm sorry, but when talking about who is going to escalate into a Nuclear War (i.e. the discussion of this thread), and we are talking about rising tensions with Russia, I think that noting the result of said rising tensions and presenting it as the "war" you are implying will occur is a perfectly valid use of the phrase. At least that is some type of evidence, whereas your "war" is mere speculation.Don't try to pretend you're talking about escalation when your own quote says war with Russia and you presented as "evidence" that WAR WITH RUSSIA won't use nukes by presenting the cold war as an example when it wasn't even a war and doesn't aid your original argument in anyway. The 'cold war' is absolutely no evidence, neither small nor large, because the rules of the game have completely changed. It's equivalent to implying that you will win at chess because you won at checkers. Although within the context of the nuclear stand off, it would rather be more suitable to compare it to the game of lottery, or the Russian roulette. |
| ... |
Tsundereppoi said: Can I ask then, based on what evidence, are you claiming that the ratio of chance is 1/6?Pirating_Ninja said: I'm sorry, but when talking about who is going to escalate into a Nuclear War (i.e. the discussion of this thread), and we are talking about rising tensions with Russia, I think that noting the result of said rising tensions and presenting it as the "war" you are implying will occur is a perfectly valid use of the phrase. At least that is some type of evidence, whereas your "war" is mere speculation. The 'cold war' is absolutely no evidence, neither small nor large, because the rules of the game have completely changed. It's equivalent to implying that you will win at chess because you won at checkers. Although within the context of the nuclear stand off, it would rather be more suitable to compare it to the game of lottery, or the Russian roulette. Although if we are talking about the lottery, that is 1/100,000,000 or more, so I mean the chances aren't that bad. Plus, carpet bombing Syria, inciting war between the US and Syria which will then involve Iran and possibly Russia, seems like a much, much, MUCH more likely way to legitimately find ourselves in a war with Russia than simply saying a few nasty things and keeping up current sanctions. |
|
| Wait, wait, wait....do people here seriously and honestly believe that ANY candidate is stupid enough to want to start a war with Russia?! You know...and effectively end all life on this miserable planet? The U.S and Russia played this game for more than 40 fucking years....and both sides never gave in because they BOTH knew that it wouldn't matter who started it....BOTH would lose. Every sensible person in the U.S who understands this, knows that no one is crazy enough to go to war with Russia. And EVEN if Hillary or Trump or whoever were deranged enough to want to go to war....there is not a single fucking iota that congress or the goddamn military would let them. Are we still under this insane thought process that the POTUS can literally declare war on any country for any arbitrary reason?! You people watch too many movies/TV shows....that's NOT the way it works. |
| Anti Russian propaganda has already started: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21709028-how-contain-vladimir-putins-deadly-dysfunctional-empire-threat-russia?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709 |
JustALEX said: Are we still under this insane thought process that the POTUS can literally declare war on any country for any arbitrary reason?! well they are discussing about who might/will fire Nuclear weapons and this article i read sometime ago said that the POTUS is like the absolute authority when it comes to firing nukes What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955 |
Actually I think she is trying to get votes from both parties so she has to try to appeal to both. JustALEX said: Wait, wait, wait....do people here seriously and honestly believe that ANY candidate is stupid enough to want to start a war with Russia?! Yes, strangely. Im more concerned with Saudi Arabia would do with nukes that Trump wants it to have. |
Pirating_Ninja said: Tsundereppoi said: Can I ask then, based on what evidence, are you claiming that the ratio of chance is 1/6?The 'cold war' is absolutely no evidence, neither small nor large, because the rules of the game have completely changed. It's equivalent to implying that you will win at chess because you won at checkers. Although within the context of the nuclear stand off, it would rather be more suitable to compare it to the game of lottery, or the Russian roulette. Although if we are talking about the lottery, that is 1/100,000,000 or more, so I mean the chances aren't that bad. Plus, carpet bombing Syria, inciting war between the US and Syria which will then involve Iran and possibly Russia, seems like a much, much, MUCH more likely way to legitimately find ourselves in a war with Russia than simply saying a few nasty things and keeping up current sanctions. I can give you a (relatively) short lesson on the 20th century history of war (WW2 and CW) and geopolitics. And this will be my evidence. If we look at what circumstances Russia (USSR) was facing shortly before WW2 began, and what measures it undertook before WW2 began, we'll know that: - Russia all of the sudden decided it wants to invade Finland, Lithuania, and eastern Poland, despite effectively throwing them away after the 1917 revolution. - These invasions happened within the context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement between Stalin and Hitler. - If we're going to ask why specifically Finland, Lithuania, and only eastern Poland became of interest to Russia, we would have to look at the historical borders of the Russian Empire, and ask why those borders were established the way they were established. - The answer lies for the most part purely in security issues stemming out of conventional warfare. Topographically Russia is a very difficult area to defend, due to its vast flat plains and almost no access to seas or oceans. Central Poland is a topographical gateway between eastern and western Europe. To explain in simple terms: Russia feels more secure when its borders are pressed to the narrowest corridor in eastern Europe, which lies between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathian Mountains. - The agreement on the division of Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany, was therefore Russia's attempt at restoring the same level of conventional security, which it had during its Imperial times, therefore in effect making Poland the only possible place from where Hitler could launch an invasion against the USSR. Now to the Cold War. The stand-off between the US and Russia, in territorial contexts, was happening in the center of Europe (therefore even further away from Russia's main cities, than during the USSR/Nazi stand-off). And both the US and Russia managed to maintain this, pretty much frozen, status-quo for decades, to the point that the Soviet elite agreed to completely trash its political motivation to wage communist revolutions on a global scale. Geographically speaking, Russia was very satisfied with what it had, it felt near to none insecurity in terms of conventional warfare, and the only things that bothered it was the inconsistency of the US in the American nuclear narrative. But either way, despite their ideological differences, both superpowers were happy with what they had at their disposal. This however is no longer true for contemporary politics. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not only lose its Soviet gains in Europe, but also lost its Imperial territories. This, in conventional military terms, leaves Russia completely exposed from all directions, and given the fact that the US (through NATO) is also not interested in maintaining any form of status quo in Europe (hence the expansion of the NATO alliance and the increase of American military assets in eastern Europe), Russia therefore cannot justify the protection of a status quo in this standoff, and there virtually even is no status quo to begin with. The cold war was a frozen conflict. Today's conflict between Russia and the US is not frozen, the situation is very dynamic and changes rapidly. The situation inside Ukraine has technically put eastern Europe on the verge of war, and similar shenanigans are brewing right now in the Baltic regions. (I know since I'm from there) You cannot use the example of a conflict in which both sides are satisfied with what they have, and neither of them are interested in changing the status quo, to a situation when neither sides are satisfied with what they have, and both of them would kill to change the status quo. And in case of Russia, breaking up the NATO system in eastern Europe is a matter of life and death, especially within the context of the American tactical nukes there and the American anti-missile program (which is actually much worse than Reagan's SDI "star wars" bullshit) The stand-off today is not cold because it is not frozen. It's pretty darn hot, unpredictable and explosive. |
| ... |
JustALEX said: Well my initial worry on this topic stemmed from the fact that a few weeks ago, our Secretary of Defense said that he is willing to use a first-strike policy on Russia, so no, it's not just the candidates. And EVEN if Hillary or Trump or whoever were deranged enough to want to go to war....there is not a single fucking iota that congress or the goddamn military would let them. http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/956050/carter-dod-will-rebuild-sustain-its-nuclear-deterrence-enterprise |
| I can actually see a case for that, however the main problem still exists, and that is there is no protection against nukes. If one side fires, the other side will too and neither side wants to be the one to be blown to smithereens (certainly if they could contain it to only the other side, then there is a slight chance) I have heard a lot of America moving anti-missile systems to Eastern European countries, however from what I have heard the systems themselves are not all that reliable. Certainly not good enough that should America launch a strike on Russia, Russia could not then just destroy the entire world. If anything, to me it appears more like just nudging Russia, with something that represents a "tipping point" in a presumed stand-off, but essentially doesn't mean much. Although something major could have changed in like the last 6-8 years as far as Anti-missile systems go, but I doubt it given how slow progress has been on them. |
|
| no one is going to start a nuclear war with anyone you people are delusional though you can claim that Hilary is definitely more hawkish than Obama |
| after reading the back and forth debate here, why the fuck is Putin so combative anyway, to me he is the problem, if you look at news the Russian people are suffering that their economy is sinking and cost of living there in Russia is increasing too so you will see on news too a lot of labor protests done by Russians but Putin all cares about is spending more in their military and he even throw out the some sort of anti-nuclear pact from USA, so Putin is like preparing for war at the expense of the Russian people and its economy |
Pirating_Ninja said: I can actually see a case for that, however the main problem still exists, and that is there is no protection against nukes. If one side fires, the other side will too and neither side wants to be the one to be blown to smithereens (certainly if they could contain it to only the other side, then there is a slight chance) You are quoting the MAD theory, but first of all, it is merely a theory which cannot serve as evidence to a fact, and secondly, despite the US/Russia mostly having trashed the narrative of a "limited nuclear strike" during the 2nd half of the Cold War, this narrative has once again returned in the 21st century. And yes there are people who honestly believe that the use of a single or two nukes will not lead to a nuclear war. And in fact, if I'm correct, Russia's recent amendments to its official state military doctrine, actually add the use of preemptive nuclear strikes in case of perceived threats to its national security. However these preemptive measure are not limited to nuclear weapons per se, but given the context of Russia's modern borders, yes it implies that Russia on an official level has just obligated itself to at least invade NATO countries in eastern Europe if it finds it necessary for security means. (and situations cited in the doctrine include revolutions and coup d'etats in those states, as well as ethnic tensions) How will the US respond to the invasion of a NATO member? Commit itself to the conflict and actually trade shots with the Russians? Or swipe the entire NATO alliance under the carpet and pretend it never existed? Good questions. Pirating_Ninja said: I have heard a lot of America moving anti-missile systems to Eastern European countries, however from what I have heard the systems themselves are not all that reliable. Certainly not good enough that should America launch a strike on Russia, Russia could not then just destroy the entire world. |
| ... |
| How is that a surprise to anyone? |
 |
j0x said: after reading the back and forth debate here, why the fuck is Putin so combative anyway, to me he is the problem, if you look at news the Russian people are suffering that their economy is sinking and cost of living there in Russia is increasing too so you will see on news too a lot of labor protests done by Russians but Putin all cares about is spending more in their military and he even throw out the some sort of anti-nuclear pact from USA, so Putin is like preparing for war at the expense of the Russian people and its economy because it distracts everyone from domestic problems and attempts to unify a country that might be dissatisfied with the current state of the country |
Zeally said: j0x said: after reading the back and forth debate here, why the fuck is Putin so combative anyway, to me he is the problem, if you look at news the Russian people are suffering that their economy is sinking and cost of living there in Russia is increasing too so you will see on news too a lot of labor protests done by Russians but Putin all cares about is spending more in their military and he even throw out the some sort of anti-nuclear pact from USA, so Putin is like preparing for war at the expense of the Russian people and its economy because it distracts everyone from domestic problems and attempts to unify a country that might be dissatisfied with the current state of the country make sense and if that is really the case then i just can hope that Russia's economy will crash more because of Putin so that the Russian people will finally wake up and do a people power revolution there |
| She has a history of interfering with foreign states so yes she is the more likely candidate to start shit. |
| Now when it comes to trump and Hillary I not really the biggest fan of ether of them actually I think both of them are as bad as each other in for different reasons. But from what I have herd and to be perfectly honest I probably agree that Hillary is probably the worse choice out of both of them. Especially sense she rigging shit and is probably going to start a proxy war with Russia. So if you want humanity to nuke itself back into the Stone Ages Then be my guess vote for Hillary. |
 |
Pirating_Ninja said: Jill Stein thinks that wifi gives you brain cancer so it shouldn't be in our colleges, not too mention she thinks that Vaccines might still cause Autism or other learning disorders. I'll listen to the opinion of someone who hasn't done so much LSD that they can no longer function within the realm of reality, whether or not what she said is true. In other words, no argument. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |