Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,001
#2,001
Grand Vol said:
Hmm, don't agree with this one:

3. If you are a vulnerable state, you may regret surrendering nuclear weapons.

I don't think the Ukraine would have gone to nuclear arms over Russia moving into the Crimea. If anything, the Russians would have intervened during the riots in Kiev to secure said stockpiles and delivery systems.

Nuclear weapons would not have changed what happened. In fact, it might have made a Russian intervention happen earlier as well as turning world opinion against the pro-EU protesters. Because if the world media started talking about how the Ukraine's nuclear weapons were a security risk, you would see world opinion go completely in the opposite direction and a call for intervention to secure said weapons.




This one? Can't say I agree with most of his opinion. But it's his opinion, so there is that.

ETA: Cool, I can lay claim to post #2000 in this thread.
Click to expand...

Haha there is no one at CNN who has an opinion worth listening to
 
#2,002
#2,002
UTVOLFAN said:
Haha there is no one at CNN who has an opinion worth listening to
Click to expand...

Actually, that first link had some pretty good points minus the one I picked out. I understand his logic in relating it to the Budapest Agreement, but not the fallacy that a Ukraine with nuclear arms would have been able to stop the Russian incursions.
 
#2,003
#2,003
Grand Vol said:
Actually, that first link had some pretty good points minus the one I picked out. I understand his logic in relating it to the Budapest Agreement, but not the fallacy that a Ukraine with nuclear arms would have been able to stop the Russian incursions.
Click to expand...

You know, you bring up a good point about nuclear arms. I've debated over and over in my head whether or not the possession of nuclear arms could prevent a WW3. As much as I hate the things, I'm not opposed to admitting that policies like deterrence and MAD haven't kept us from a third world war. In fact, I think it's likely we would have already fought one had it not been for nuclear arms.

Anyhow, I guess my post is a meandering way to arrive at the question of whether or not the possession of nuclear arms would prevent a conventional third world war under the premise that people are always going to fight and eventually that fight is going to reach the nuclear arms countries against one another. In the event of a showdown between NATO and Russia, NATO and China, or China and Russia (because I don't think they're as joined to the hip as people often make out), would a conventional war be possible? On the one hand, I like to think that we are all rational enough not to go there, but then again, we know that people (even top brass) aren't always rational. And all it takes, for that matter, is one mistake, even among rational people.

So, I guess my question is this: is a third world war even possible, at least conventionally speaking?
 
#2,006
#2,006
volprof said:
You know, you bring up a good point about nuclear arms. I've debated over and over in my head whether or not the possession of nuclear arms could prevent a WW3. As much as I hate the things, I'm not opposed to admitting that policies like deterrence and MAD haven't kept us from a third world war. In fact, I think it's likely we would have already fought one had it not been for nuclear arms.

Anyhow, I guess my post is a meandering way to arrive at the question of whether or not the possession of nuclear arms would prevent a conventional third world war under the premise that people are always going to fight and eventually that fight is going to reach the nuclear arms countries against one another. In the event of a showdown between NATO and Russia, NATO and China, or China and Russia (because I don't think they're as joined to the hip as people often make out), would a conventional war be possible? On the one hand, I like to think that we are all rational enough not to go there, but then again, we know that people (even top brass) aren't always rational. And all it takes, for that matter, is one mistake, even among rational people.

So, I guess my question is this: is a third world war even possible, at least conventionally speaking?
Click to expand...

The theory would actually be more of TRUT's domain than mine. But I will say that it probably prevented a full on war between the Soviets and us because you are correct, it would only take one to push the button.

But having nuclear arms did not prevent the proxy wars that we both got involved in; Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan being the most notable. And the superpowers behind the scenes in each pulling the strings. Sometimes you don't need a full on military confrontation to bleed out your enemy. Look at what Vietnam did to our nation and specifically our military. And look what Afghanistan did to the Soviets.
 
#2,007
#2,007
Grand Vol said:
The theory would actually be more of TRUT's domain than mine. But I will say that it probably prevented a full on war between the Soviets and us because you are correct, it would only take one to push the button.

But having nuclear arms did not prevent the proxy wars that we both got involved in; Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan being the most notable. And the superpowers behind the scenes in each pulling the strings. Sometimes you don't need a full on military confrontation to bleed out your enemy. Look at what Vietnam did to our nation and specifically our military. And look what Afghanistan did to the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know the proxy war thing. But I'm mainly thinking full-on collision. It's all speculative. Is a conventional world war now possible or will it merely result in a nuclear cataclysm? That's the 64,000 dollar question I suppose.

Honestly, if I were to have to take a stab, I would say that a conventional world war is no longer possible. At some point, either some ******* somewhere is going to turn the key or an undeliberate mistake will be made. On the one hand, this is a good thing. It means that the world most likely doesn't have to worry about a full-scale war again. On the other, it is a bad thing, because it means superpowers can do pretty much whatever they want without repercussions (as long as they don't push too far into another superpower's domain).
 
#2,008
#2,008
Well, in Ukraine time, we are just a few hours away from the vote. I hope Putin is as smart as he thinks he is. Personally, I don't think this ends well for him.
 
#2,010
#2,010
Last edited:
#2,011
#2,011
Crimeans voting today on two options:

1. Join Russia
2. Become an independent state

No option to remain part of the Ukraine.
 
#2,013
#2,013
Grand Vol said:
The theory would actually be more of TRUT's domain than mine. But I will say that it probably prevented a full on war between the Soviets and us because you are correct, it would only take one to push the button.

But having nuclear arms did not prevent the proxy wars that we both got involved in; Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan being the most notable. And the superpowers behind the scenes in each pulling the strings. Sometimes you don't need a full on military confrontation to bleed out your enemy. Look at what Vietnam did to our nation and specifically our military. And look what Afghanistan did to the Soviets.
Click to expand...
Because nukes haven't been used enough. We only nuked the country that attacked us first. If we proactively nuked other countries the deterrent would be more effective. It's like spraying your yard for pests. You have to do it a couple of times to get rid of the pests and for the product to act as a deterrent.
 
#2,014
#2,014
FLVOL_79 said:
Because nukes haven't been used enough. We only nuked the country that attacked us first. If we proactively nuked other countries the deterrent would be more effective. It's like spraying your yard for pests. You have to do it a couple of times to get rid of the pests and for the product to act as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

The ole' Douglas MacArthur approach, huh?
 
#2,015
#2,015
Gramps said:
Crimeans voting today on two options:

1. Join Russia
2. Become an independent state

No option to remain part of the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That sounds only slightly better than a North Korean ballot, where the only option is Lil' Kim.

Even with those options, CNN reporter said that he and his crew had witnessed numerous amounts of voting fraud today, ranging from unidentified people being allowed to vote to individuals casting multiple ballots.
 
#2,017
#2,017
volprof said:
The geopolitics of Ukraine's schism | Al Jazeera America
Click to expand...

Why does a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis make sense? There are good reasons. One is the U.S. turn towards a Pacific-centrism replacing its long history of Atlantic-centrism. Russia's nightmare, and Germany's as well, is not a U.S.-China war but a U.S.-China alliance (one that would include Japan and Korea as well). Germany's only way of diminishing this threat to its own prosperity and power is an alliance with Russia. And her policy towards Ukraine shows precisely the priority she gives to resolving European issues by including rather than excluding Russia.
Click to expand...

wut

Explain why something makes sense by asserting something even more nonsensical. OK.
 
Last edited:
#2,018
#2,018
Velo Vol said:
wut

Explain why something makes sense by asserting something even more nonsensical. OK.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I provided my caveat before the link. That's quite a bit of wild speculation. Despite Nuland's actions, I think US-European relations are in great shape. Honestly, they've probably never been in better shape, because it's not just Western Europe now but much of Eastern Europe as well that we have solid working relationships with.
 
#2,019
#2,019
Seriously, why does Fox keep putting Ollie North on to talk about this? He is a blood thirsty hawk who WANTS us to be at war. He's pained at the notion his 40 year old view of the world may be obsolete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,021
#2,021
lawgator1 said:
Seriously, why does Fox keep putting Ollie North on to talk about this? He is a blood thirsty hawk who WANTS us to be at war. He's pained at the notion his 40 year old view of the world may be obsolete.
Click to expand...

More importantly, why are you still watching Fox?
 
#2,023
#2,023
volprof said:
I read this with considerable incredulity, but still makes you think:

The geopolitics of Ukraine's schism | Al Jazeera America
Click to expand...

The whole principle depends greatly on a Berlin-Moscow alliance. And let me tell you, there is a lot of historical animosity between those two countries that goes way past the last world war. Germans and Russians just don't like each other. And to a lesser degree, French and Germans don't get along that great either. While Europe has tried to become this huggy lovey union of equals, nationalistic trends do continue in the nations represented.

It's an interesting article, but completely fails to recognize the reality of the nations involved. I could not see the three forming an "alliance" based in principle of countering the US due to the extreme dislike of each other to begin with.
 
Last edited:
#2,024
#2,024
lawgator1 said:
Seriously, why does Fox keep putting Ollie North on to talk about this? He is a blood thirsty hawk who WANTS us to be at war. He's pained at the notion his 40 year old view of the world may be obsolete.
Click to expand...

You do realize there are other cable channels you could flip to in watching coverage of this?

But, having said that to say this, Col North came up studying the Soviets/Russians and their way of doing business. And in this case his views on the matter can shed some insight as to the thought process behind Putin's actions since he himself grew up under the same system. So to say his views are obsolete might not be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,025
#2,025
CNN reporting that the results are finally in. Apparently, the decision to join Russia won with roughly 90% of the vote. Seems legit.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Back
Top