The New American Cold War

[Gelion]

Not at all, I like methaphors. The problem is that this one isn't adequate. USA is more like a man with a gun under his jacket. He doesn't make any explicit threats, but another man, Russia, believes he wants to kill him. That's called paranoia
The fact they have a means to do that doesn't mean they will actually do it. See that difference?

Yeah I just don't like the attitude of that man..... if he was smiling carnivorously, while stroking his gun I'd be worried. But enough of that....

Oh my Gods, no, not again. What question? You said Iraq is a fine example, but I don't know what you mean. Example of what?

Well it seems you want to make me talk more. You understood something a few posts above, but yet you asked me to spell it out for you. I dont have that much time to do it again.

Nobody is enjoing it, but people eventually get used to it. Chinese nuclear arsenal could be wiped out without any warning and whole China could be obliterated right after that. Still, Chinese aren't expanding their ICBM arsenal, even when they can. They simply don't think that US would start a nuclear war, just like that. They keep small force as a symbolic detterent. Russia has much more deliverable weapons then they do, is in similar geostrategic position, but still, you feel threatened.

Poles were also paranoid. Plus unlike China US is expanding their military AND nuclear arsenals. Why? I dont know...

 

[amadeus]

Plus unlike China US is expanding their military AND nuclear arsenals. Why? I dont know...

Are you saying that China is not expanding their military capacity?

 

[Gelion]

Are you saying that China is not expanding their military capacity?

No. Are you saying US is not expanding their nuclear capacities?

 

[El Justo]

i have to agree w/ Winner about the 'gun under the jacket' statement wrt US intentions. i've seen almost zero evidence that a US first strike has even been contemplated. we should remember that while the US can boast primacy, she also relies on this as a deterrant, not as strong arm tactics.

China is (as per that article) at least a decade or so away from being able to climb above the threshold of 'first strike anihilation'. by this mean that their nuclear program isn't yet sufficient enough to survive any type of US first strike. but in time, this may change. one thing that i found interesting was that since the Taiwan issue has cooled som much over the last decade that the primary nuclear threat between the US and China has been dimished (thus no real need for either China or the US [mainly China] to agressively pursue nuclear superiority).

i would like to see evidence (hard evidence - not speculation or paranoia) that would suggest an 'encirclement w/ an intent to destroy'. i just don't see any plausible evidnce arising here...

addit:
OT - Winner: you rec'd my messages from the other day?

 

[Gelion]

i would like to see evidence (hard evidence - not speculation or paranoia) that would suggest an 'encirclement w/ an intent to destroy'. i just don't see any plausible evidnce arising here...

That is the evidence I cannt provide. Few hitman go on a mission leaving a note on their table saying "I'm off to kill X, bb shorty". I dont have lists of bases, targets nor secret military plans..... I'm just trying to analyse the little information that is avaliable.

If you are really interested read all you can on "Joint Vision 2010". It is a good enough document to show goals and means of US military (in fact it is just that)

Personally if there is no war before 2015 I'd come back to this forum and appologise to anyone with whom I had that argument. I surely hope I will do that.

 

[Winner]

Well it seems you want to make me talk more. You understood something a few posts above, but yet you asked me to spell it out for you. I dont have that much time to do it again.

I still have no idea what are you talking about, but heck, that's nothing new, you jump from topic to topic so quickly and so stealthy, that some people, including me, get confused. Never mind, I want to play Civ anyway.

Poles were also paranoid.

They still are, but how is that relevant for our discussion? They're not threating their neigbours, contrary to Russia.

Plus unlike China US is expanding their military AND nuclear arsenals. Why? I dont know...

China is expanding her conventional capacities, as well as Russia is. Chinese, on the other hand, don't seem to be inclined to participate in nuclear arms race. They are planning some modernizations, but even after that, their long range missile arsenal will still be only a fraction of the US one.

The point is that China doesn't feel threatened even when it is much more exposed to any potential US nuclear strike. I ask you why.

Anyway, please back your claim that US is expanding its nuclear arsenal. From what I know, they're just keeping it up-to-date.

 

[Gelion]

I still have no idea what are you talking about, but heck, that's nothing new, you jump from topic to topic so quickly and so stealthy, that some people, including me, get confused. Never mind, I want to play Civ anyway.

Good stuff. Lets leave it at that....

I have a feeling this will be your favourite handbook. Buy and enjoy!:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465027261/103-0363133-4603019?v=glance&n=283155

 

[Winner]

addit:
OT - Winner: you rec'd my messages from the other day?

I anwered via PM, but in case it didn't work from some reason - no, I didn't.

 

[JerichoHill]

Thats one point of view....
Things to add:
1. Many more Russians were killed by that Georgian dictator than Ukranians.
2. Many Ukranians know and use Russian as their first language. This includes TV, radios, books, education in general. During the last elections (to the Parliamnet) pro Russian parties (if you want to call them that) gained 30-40%of the votes. I think its a good number.
3. Ukraine is a divided state build on Soviet drawn borders. If real "Ukranian" part is Western Ukraine. East and South is Russian by culture and ethnicity.
4. History of Ukraine is a complex one. I recommend that you study it.
5. Never had problems with any Ukranians I know... but this is personal.
6. Ukraine has (sadly for some people) more cultural ties to Russia (than any other region), than even Poland or the new puppet-master - the US.

Have you read the article or you saw the word Ukraine and decided to reply?

My family is Ukranian. They escaped prior to WW2 through Hungary/Austria/German to the US. I have little reason to doubt the stories my grandfather and grandmother and grand-aunts-uncles told me.

When responding to a post, please do not bait.

 

[Gelion]

My family is Ukranian. They escaped prior to WW2 through Hungary/Austria/German to the US. I have little reason to doubt the stories my grandfather and grandmother and grand-aunts-uncles told me.

When responding to a post, please do not bait.

Part of my family was killed during 1920's. Your point?

 

[nc-1701]

I believe it is only naturel that Russia wants nuclear parity or atleast a return of MAD America would do the exact same thing in Russias case.
I do not belive that America could sucessfully destroy Russia in a first strike either Murphys law dictates that Russia would get lucky and hit something also remember the newew Russian ICBMs are road mobile. China is greatly modernizing their conventional forces and could reach parity with America in 20-30 years or less. As for Chinas nuclear arsenal I know less but I do know their working hard on new "boomer" subs and strategic bombers presumebly to complete the nuclear triad.

 

[JerichoHill]

Part of my family was killed during 1920's. Your point?

That they were Ukrainian. That they witnessed Stalin's purges. That they fled to avoid them.

Centuries ago, Russia invaded Ukraine and made it a fiefdom. The differences between black russians and white russians run very deep.

--from wiki

Forced collectivization had a devastating effect on agricultural productivity. Despite this, in 1932 the Soviet government increased Ukraine's production quotas by 44%, ensuring that they could not be met. Soviet law required that the members of a collective farm would receive no grain until government quotas were satisfied. The authorities in many instances exacted such high levels of procurement from collective farms that starvation became widespread. Millions starved to death in a famine, known as the Holodomor (available data is insufficient for precise calculations therefore estimates vary). The Soviet Union suppressed information about the famine, and as late as the 1980s admitted only that there was some hardship because of kulak sabotage and bad weather. Today, its existence is accepted. Some historians consider the famine of 1932–33 to be the unavoidable consequence of Stalin's program of industrialization and collectivization. Others maintain that the famine was an avoidable, deliberate act of genocide.

The times of industrialization and collectivization also brought about a wide campaign against "nationalist deviation" which in Ukraine translated into an assault on the national political and cultural elite. The first wave of purges between 1929 and 1934 targeted the revolutionary generation of the party that in Ukraine included many supporters of Ukrainization. The next 1936-1938 wave of political purges (see Great Purge) eliminated much of the new political generation that replaced those that perished in the first wave and halved the membership of the Ukrainian communist party. The purged Ukrainian political leadership was largely replaced by the cadre send from Russia that was also largely "rotated" by Stalin's purges. As the policies of Ukrainization were halted (1931) and replaced by massive Russification approximately four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite, intellectuals, writers, artists and clergy, had been "eliminated", executed or imprisoned, in the following decade. Mass arrests of the hierarchy and clergy of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church culminated in the liquidation of the church in 1930
---
In fact, this act of genocide killed more Ukrainians than the Holocaust killed Jews.

I believe my point stands. The Ukrainians were an occupied country, and at every point that they had an opportunity to revolt, they did. They failed many times though, and that led to alot of acrimony.

 

[Gelion]

That they were Ukrainian. That they witnessed Stalin's purges. That they fled to avoid them.

Russians suffered from Communist government from year 1917 (earlier than Ukranians). Many fled, many died, many more suffered. Who is to blame for that? Russia?
I feel for your relatives, but they were not the only ones....

Do you even know that that Hunger spread to other parts of the Soviet Union? Could you picture it geographically? And finally if it was a crime, what is the connection of that with current Russia please?

I believe my point stands. The Ukrainians were an occupied country, and at every point that they had an opportunity to revolt, they did. They failed many times though, and that led to alot of acrimony.

Do you consider Poland to be an occupying power as well? (throughout history).... yes I do believe you are right Ukraine should be independant and allowed to exercise their own policies and live in their own culture. To that end it could let go the areas where Russians make up 50 to 100% of the population. This way Ukraine with her revisionist and russofobic attitudes can do whatever they want on their own territory, not on the land they occupy now (like Crimea)..... deal?

 

[JohnRM]

The Ukraine is not that closely tied to Russia. It is only tied because it was conquered a very long time ago, and then had much of its people killed by Stalin during WW2.

Ukrainians really do not like Russians very much

In Crimea and the easternmost parts of Ukraine, the majority of the population is Russian.

 

[JohnRM]

I did read most of the article, and I agree with the stated goals. We must ensure the stability of Russia and the security of its nuclear stockpile. It would be to the advantage of the rest of the world to carry out such an objective by making Russia dependent on the rest of the world to maintain its power. I cannot begin to talk about how that could be done.

As far as the American withdrawal from the ABM treaty is concerned - it was the right thing to do. Ballistic Missile weapons need to be made obsolete and the only way to do that is to develop an anti-ballistic missile system. I trust the United States not to launch a first strike. However, the fact is that Russia had already developed an ABM system long before the withdrawal of the US from the treaty. They have missiles tipped with nuclear warheads that would detonate high in the atmosphere to destroy incoming warheads. It is not perfect and leaves the people down below with some fallout, but it is an ABM system nonetheless.

 

[Winner]

As far as the American withdrawal from the ABM treaty is concerned - it was the right thing to do. Ballistic Missile weapons need to be made obsolete and the only way to do that is to develop an anti-ballistic missile system. I trust the United States not to launch a first strike. However, the fact is that Russia had already developed an ABM system long before the withdrawal of the US from the treaty. They have missiles tipped with nuclear warheads that would detonate high in the atmosphere to destroy incoming warheads. It is not perfect and leaves the people down below with some fallout, but it is an ABM system nonetheless.

I am afraid that the problem lies in their early warning system. Maybe I should say "latter warning system". Their satellites are unreliable and old, so they rely on land based radars.

The problem is this could lead to accidental nuclear war. If their satellites reported something like launch of ICBM's from US missile silos, they would have to wait if their land-based radars pick up the incoming warhead. Unfortunately, this seriously affects their reaction time. They fear that given the current state of their nuclear arsenal, they wouldn't have a time to answer by launching their own ICBM's, which would be then destroyed by incoming US warheads.

Therefore, there is a posibility, that some Russian hothead would launch his missiles because of crappy EWS readings.

I suggest that Russians reduce their nuclear arsenal significantly and retain just few dozens of hi-tech ICBM's capable of penetrating US anti-balistic defences. The money they spare could then be used to improve their early warning systems.

I think this would be a compromise acceptable to everyone.

 

[Samson]

I suggest that Russians reduce their nuclear arsenal significantly and retain just few dozens of hi-tech ICBM's capable of penetrating US anti-balistic defences. The money they spare could then be used to improve their early warning systems.

I think this would be a compromise acceptable to everyone.

This would be a reasnoble option (for all countries) but it seems to me that a large number of resnobly mobile ICBM's is a very ecconomical way of defending against external agresion. Hence so many counties are trying to aquire them.

 

[nc-1701]

This would be a reasnoble option (for all countries) but it seems to me that a large number of resnobly mobile ICBM's is a very ecconomical way of defending against external agresion. Hence so many counties are trying to aquire them.

Yes Russias new Topol-m ICBMs are road mobile and carry special high manuerability warheads so that Americas ABM will have almost no posibility to hit in other words our ABMs are already obsolete.

 

[El Justo]

The extraordinarily anti-Russian nature of these policies casts serious doubt on two American official and media axioms...

okay - onto the 2nd post:

i agree that there's a valid point that American-Russian relations may indeed have been better 15 yrs ago. both Reagan and H.W. Bush, though outwardly bullish on communisim, harbored a certain amount of magnanimity that does not exist in 2006. say what you will but the US did not pour salt on open wounds in late '89-into 1990-and '91.

on the flipside of this i think that lots of US pols today are feeling a bit uneasy w/ the Russian govt seizing a part of the private oil industry and thus squashing out foreign investment. and rightfully so imo.

it certainly was not a "great American vicotry" once 1992 rolled around. it was strictly circumstance that this occurred in Soviet Russia. iow, the US need not take any sort of overblown credit for the failures of the Soviet state. of course, there are some issues that may have contributed to the Soviet demise but imho the US did not fire the proverbial shell that sank the ship.

this is yet another case of the Clinton Admin dropping the ball so to speak in the realm of foreign affairs. of course, this is my opinion. but i am not surprised that the Clinton Admin took this course. i wonder what the Russian feelings would have been had the Clinton Admin exercised a bit more magnanimity.

wrt the "anti-Russian fatwa" statement:
these remarks all seem harsh on the surface. no doubt about that. however, one must look deeper into the issue and try to understand why exactly these comments are being made. things such as intel provided to enemy Iraqis, night vision googles purportedly being sent to them, etc, are these remarks unsubstantiated or is it American paranoia? i don't have the answer. however, i do know that accusations such as these deserve investigation and a chance to get to the core of the issues (ie-are they false or what?)

wrt the WTO issue and Cheney's remarks:
again - what prompted this? there must be something in the water so to speak that would cause this apparent about-face? i'm curious to know these answers. the next paragraph of the article addresses some of these things. but are they legitimate? i mean, do other non-Americans or non-Russians have similar reservations as the Yanks do? or is it trumped up charges due to decades of Soviet-American suspicions?

the following paragraph has cited that Foreign Affairs article i referred to earlier about US nuclear primacy (i inadvertantly called it Intl Affairs - my bad). this article sheds a great deal of light on the US-Russia-China nuclear capacities. i still hope to get pieces of it up onto this thread but i have to scan it...

i think that there are 2 main themes here.

1.) are the recent American accusations of Putin's heavy hand justified? i mean, is it rhetorical BS or is there even a shred of credibility to any of it? if my govt was being accused of such things, i'd certainly want to do a thorough gut check. now - don't get me wrong - every govt most definitely has its flaws and the Bush Admin is clearly not exempt from this.

2.) has the old-school Soviet paranoia clouded reality? i don't know but i would almost bet the ranch that the US and her allies have zero plans to war w/ Russia.

lastly - i think that Putin's KGB past and people like Dick Cheney's hawkish anti-commie past certainly don't help the situation. knowing this, i wonder what the Russian-American relationship would be like if all remaining aspects of the first cold war were gone. that's food for thought!

 

[Commy]

The Ukraine is not that closely tied to Russia. It is only tied because it was conquered a very long time ago, and then had much of its people killed by Stalin during WW2.

Great joke!