1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

So what happens if Putin decides he wants Latvia?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by storealex, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    20,154
    Location:
    Sydney
    The US will elected a Republican President
    Then the US will arm a lot of "Freedom Fighters" to fight for freedom ..... wait.

    Seriously: Cold War part 2
    Economic and diplomatic isolation / sanctions + cold war spy games and espionage
     
  2. James Stuart

    James Stuart King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    Sydney
    Hang on, your argument is that a nation that attacks a nation with enough of a nuclear deterrant to wipe it from the map, i snot attacking a country with a non-negligible deterrant, because it's not enough to wipe out the US, Russia, etc.? That's... Honestly, that's just a really stupid argument to make.

    I don't think the Russian economy will last that long, to be honest. It's essentially dependent upon fossil fuels already, and the EU is not going to stay beholden to Russian gas forever.
     
  3. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,318
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    It's a bad time to be a small country near Russia. It's easy to be cavalier about it as long as it's someone else's country, right? And such a small, "insignificant" country it is, too...

    Ah yes, the same Germans who propped up your economy after it collapsed. Is this what they call "biting the hand that feeds you"?

    This kinda bothers me. I thought the idea behind NATO was for every member to help defend every member, no matter how tiny or irrelevant you think they are? You're suggesting that NATO abandon Latvia to their fate because they're not important enough? I wonder, which countries are important enough to you?

    (Oh, and just to preempt anyone who thinks of saying it, no nonsense about a Russian invasion of Latvia being purely hypothetical. That's exactly what this thread is about, to discuss the response to that hypothetical situation.)

    You know, a lot of what you've been saying on this forum boils down to "Oh, those Russians are so strong, let's not mess with them!"
     
  4. Natan35

    Natan35 Mayor of St. Natansburg

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    5,139
    Location:
    Ashdod,israel
    Has it ever accrued to you that Israel nuking middle east countries or India nuking Pakistan will hurt all countries in the area, including the launching ones?
    BTW, Nukes are Israel's last resort. That's why Israel has Submarines capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Israel is also the world's top drone producing country.
     
  5. James Stuart

    James Stuart King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    Sydney
    Some people just can't stand to admit that they need help, and feel the need to attack those who help them.

    You're saying he's afraid of being shirt-fronted?

    I'm pretty sure that MAD doesn't stand for 'Mutually Assured Destruction" because only one side in the war gets hammered.

    BTW, nukes are everyone's last resort. Even the bloody North Koreans aren't planning offensive wars with these things, and Mao Zedong's inability to comprehend nuclear war is part of what cost him the PRC leadership.
     
  6. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,318
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    :lol:

    He may very well be. ;)

    I knew the sentiment seemed familiar...
     
  7. James Stuart

    James Stuart King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    Sydney
    It's Neville Chamberlain? I thought I was quoting some of the earlier posters in this thread.
     
  8. Virote_Considon

    Virote_Considon The Great Dictator

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    9,373
    Location:
    Skaville UK Reputation: 1
    I remember reading how the Germans scoffed at this very notion as they rode into Belgium little over one hundred years ago.
     
  9. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,318
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    'Tis a very common sentiment around here by the looks of it. Plenty of people are channeling old Neville.
     
  10. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    Well, no, that isn't the argument I made.

    I listed those five countries as the ones who I believe have an effective nuclear deterrent. I did not say that to be an effective deterrent you have to be able to torch those countries.

    If your nuclear arsenal can be rendered 'not launchable' by an enemy invasion it does not deter that invasion. If your only delivery systems are land based and immobile that means they can be disabled by a quick strike from anyone who can get the location intel, and nothing in the world is secret for very long. So mobile is a requirement for an effective deterrent...unless you have a really huge number and can say 'you will not get them all before we can launch them, and enough will get launched to reduce you to ash'. Otherwise, fixed point of launch missile systems should be considered as first strike weapons not deterrents, because they lack survivability.

    A little added research and I'm inclined to add Israel to the list. Apparently they have cruise missiles that can deliver nuclear payload that can be launched from their Dolphin class subs so they can torch any coastal city in the Mediterranean.
     
  11. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    Actually, I was saying that countries with effective nuclear deterrence can't be invaded because the consequences are too great. Do you disagree?

    I also said that Russia is indeed one of those countries. Do you disagree?

    I've also said that Russia's boorish behavior is no worse than anyone elses, but I'm sure you disagree with that, which is fine.
     
  12. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,589
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    The Economist has a weekly podcast. One of this week's articles is about Russian's financial woes. Really, the best way to fight Russian aggression at this stage is not by buying small flags of your country, but helping reduce the global demand for oil and helping drop the price. They're so utterly dependent on that revenue, and the recent drop in prices is really troublesome for them.
     
  13. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    After defeating Germany in World War I the victors imposed crushing economic conditions which destroyed the German economy.

    The cold war ended when the USSR collapsed, and there is great rejoicing at economic conditions that damage the Russian economy.

    Why? It really didn't turn out that well with the Germans, did it?
     
  14. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,186
    The dependence of Russian economy on fossil fuels is to large extent a consequence of ridiculously high oil prices during the last decade. The profit of investment in oil/gas sector was so high that it greatly reduced investments in other industries. I'm sure that gradual reducing of oil export revenues will be in long term beneficial for Russian economy. Provided it will be gradual.

    As for economic problems, on one hand, there is quite serious devaluation of rouble, in addition to GDP growth prognosis around 0.3% for 2014 and also predicted growth of inflation. On the other hand, record low unemployment rate (~5%) - Ukrainian refugees, especially skilled workers, are getting job almost instantly. Also, a growth in IT industry and booming of internet market (~30% growth in 2014). So far it's nowhere close to 2008 or 1998 crisis years.
     
  15. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    My point rather was that apologists gonna apologize.

    That's what Ukraine said back in February
     
  16. KMRblue1027

    KMRblue1027 The Crown!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,239
    Location:
    Hamilton, NJ
    If Russia deliberately tried to invade Latvia that activates Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. I'm not sure why there's such a discussion on this, an invasion of a NATO member is a declaration of war on the entire alliance. That's the whole point of the organization.
     
  17. Ironsided

    Ironsided Flower of happiness

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,267
    Well, my text was not an apology. A goldfish could see that. In fact, my distaste for NATO and Russian aggressions are spread about evenly.

    You know, if you guys in NATO and Russia really have to provoke each other to the breaking point, have the courtesy to consummate it on your own soil and please clean up the mess when you are done.
    Childish bastards.
     
  18. James Stuart

    James Stuart King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    Sydney
    That information does make a little more sense than what your argument seemed to be before. Still, if the state in question is not capable of launching such an invasion, then the nuclear deterrent is good enough. To re-use the India-Pakistan example, while the US, UK, or France, might be able to render India's nuclear arsenal ineffective through a series of well-timed surgical strikes, neither Pakistan nor China, the two states that nuclear build-up is aimed at, is capable of doing so. In other words, the two states the Indian nuclear arsenal is designed to deter, it is strong enough to deter. That Pakistan is too stupid to realise this is its own problem, one of many.

    The Indian arsenal isn't totally fixed. I don't know if they have submarine platforms yet, but I know they are planning them, and they have other mobile forces. Even North Korea's nukes have some mobility, via the train lines. It's a testament to Pakistan's inefficiency that they have the world's only non-mobile nuclear arsenal.

    The entire reason for NATO's conventional arms build-up after the Kennedy Administration is because nuclear deterrence may not be enough to stop a country which decides to call your bluff on a nuclear strike. North Korea, China, Vietnam, and other states defied the US and its allies in spite of the nuclear deterrent, out of a belief that the US would not use that deterrent; South Vietnam wasn't worth a bloody war with China or the USSR. There were many who feared that the Soviets might gamble on an attack on Western Europe if the US showed any sign that it would not risk its own survival to defend the Europeans; this was the main reason France and Britain pursued their own nuclear programs, regardless of any claims about prestige. Russia has always been paranoid about an invasion from the West (not entirely without reason, given Russian history) and therefore may not believe their nuclear arsenal to be enough deterrent.

    And most states have not invaded and annexed anyone's territory lately. Regardless of your opinion of US foreign policy, they haven't annexed any territory since 1898, whereas Russia has annexed territory this year. The Russian puppet-states in Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, among others, are also far less independent than the US-backed regimes in Iraq or Afghanistan. US foreign policy is woefully incompetent, but it is nowhere near as aggressive or "boorish" as Russia's.

    If we extend "anyone elses [sic]" to include literally any other state in the world we will see that no one has tried to pull any stunts like Putin's in Crimea since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990. Even if you want to ignore annexations and only focus on invasions, Russia is still more "boorish" than everyone except America, which it ties, with unprovoked invasion apiece since 2000. Given that Russia basically sat on Georgia's chest until the latter retaliated in 2008, that's also hardly unprovoked, but I'll still put it in that category.

    Entirely different situations. The rise of Hitler is actually because the other parties to the Versailles Treaty stopped mistreating Germany. Germany also did not begin to act aggressively until its economy improved - albeit temporarily - whereas Russia is lashing out while it still has a strong(ish) economy. Wanting the warmonger's economy to break down to the point he can't make war any more is a good thing; Germany lost a democratic government and gained a dictatorship due to long-term economic hardship, whereas Russia is more likely to go the Filipino and Indonesian route, of losing a dictatorship and gaining a democracy due to sudden economic collapse.
     
  19. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    They may have 'stopped mistreating them', but their real error was allowing them to rebuild their military in defiance of terms. Which is really the issue I was trying to point out with Russia. Economic collapse leads to change of government unless the government controls sufficient military power to make something else happen. Indonesia and the Philippines didn't. Germany did. Russia does.

    As to the benefits to the world of losing a dictatorship and gaining a democracy...note that your tie at the top for 'most boorish behavior' is one dictatorship and one democracy, so that isn't necessarily a win.
     
  20. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    9,327
    Gender:
    Male
    I've got to side with Russia on this one. If for no other reason that Pax Americana has been boring as hell and has made Call of Duty Campaign plots more and more ridiculous, the iPhone and Galaxy generation needs something real to look up to and remember later.
     

Share This Page