backtop

Print 190 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Oct 6 at 8:42 AM

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, pictured here next to a Topol M nuclear missile, announced the latest escalation. He accuses the U.S. of playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship.  (Source: Sun UK)

Russia remains defiant against the Western world, for which it has great mistrust. Its new nuclear campaign seeks to expand its nuclear presence on land, in the air, and by sea.  (Source: AFP)
Russia is planning to expand its nuclear firepower

Amid constant fears of the economic and military pressures from China, the increasingly militaristic demeanor of Russia has been largely overlooked.  While China has been allegedly waging cyber war against the U.S. and others, Russia, manifested its aggressions by recently invading neighbor Georgia.

Infuriated at the U.S. and NATO's support of Georgia, Russia's leadership is announcing plans of a massive new nuclear armament campaign -- and it says the new campaign is the fault of the U.S.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced last week that by 2020, Russia would have a new "guaranteed nuclear deterrent system" in place.  Plans for the system will be submitted by Russia's top generals in December, and are expected to include new nuclear subs and a new "system of aerospace defense".  It is unclear whether this means a defensive anti-nuke system such as the U.S. missile shield, or an expanded nuclear arsenal.

In his announcement, President Medvedev pointed a finger at the U.S., saying that the U.S. was to blame for the recent military escalation.  He accused the U.S.'s deployment of a defensive missile shield to Poland as an attempt to start a new arms race.  He vowed, "We must guarantee nuclear deterrence under various political and military conditions by 2020."

His wide-reaching new plans also include trying to "achieve dominance in airspace".  Russia's aging air force is advanced, but significantly trails the U.S.'s top fighter lines.  Further, he said that "new types of armaments" from nukes to traditional payloads also might be on the agenda.

The nuclear subs and defense system will be the integral part of the campaign, he stated.  He announced, "We plan to start serial production of warships, primarily nuclear-powered submarines carrying cruise missiles and multifunctional submarines.  We will develop an aerospace defense system, as well."

U.S. officials expressed relative apathy for Russia's latest posturing.  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Russia's new campaign would not change the balance of power.  She called the U.S. nuclear deterrent "capable" and "robust" and said, "The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures."

Russia remains adamant that the U.S. is plotting against it.  It says the placement of missile-detecting radar in the Czech Republic and a missile shield is a U.S. conspiracy to establish "a ring of steel" around Russia.  Russia said it will be "forced to react".

The nation has long carried out a relatively ambitious program of weapons development.  Late last year DailyTech reported that Russia had developed the "father of all bombs", the largest traditional payload in existence.  More recently it was in the news for testing a new type of nuclear missile.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:10:00 AM , Rating: 4
Sigh.

Again Condi opens her mouth and spews forth something silly.

Of course its not going to change the nuclear balance of power... That isn't even what they are attempting, not even close. Putin warned the west years ago that if they went ahead with essentially Star Wars 2 (yeah its ground based so sue me) that Russia would change their nuclear strategy to nullify the anti-ballistic missile shield. Why? Cause the ABM shield is the destabilizing force upon the Nuclear Balance of power, not more nukes.

Anyone as supposedly versed in international relations as Dr. Rice knows in her small little ice cold heart that more nukes don't change anything. The amount of nuclear overkill between just the two major nuclear powers is so extravagant that a few thousand more won't substantially change anything. (who has them might, but that beyond the scope of this rant)

What is a game changer is the notion of scrapping the ABM treaties, which Bush did, and then attempting to institute a system where by one would be combatant can defend against a first strike / retaliatory strike of the other. This then would allow a notion that MAD no longer applies, and in such a case the Nuclear Balance is trashed. Important here is the notion that it doesn't even really have to work, instead it simply has to change the view of the masses / government into one of a possibility of survival.

So Condi, you're right that it won't change the nuclear balance, however, it isn't their idea to change any balance; instead it is the desire not to see the balance change that prompts their actions. Further, if you attribute and re-emergence of Russian power as 'the Cold War' then your a blathering idiot. NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. I believe that American history holds that this action almost started World War 3.

You'd think the 'west' or more specifically the U.S might learn from their own history when thinking about possible repercussions of placing new arms systems very close to a cagey adversary? Or perhaps that cancelling treaties who's purpose was stability and an arms draw down; may cause the other party to rearm.

Putin is powerful and popular in Russia. While not universally loved and supported, he is known for bringing Russia back to a state of power and pride after the lost decade (post Soviet Union). That is a very powerful image in a country that was 'a super power', and had been brought to its knees which engenders domestic support. Part of this strength image is from standing up to the west, and part of that is in reassuming the role that even a perfectly democratic capitalist Russia would have both regionally and globally. (remember democratic doesn't mean agrees with and supports US foreign policy)

To continuously poke a regional / re-entrant global power the way NATO has; is to invite a show of strength... Perhaps even require it.




RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
Edit:

"attribute and re-emergence" should be "attribute any re-emergence"


By paydirt on 9/30/2008 8:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
brinksmanship = expanding your nuclear arsenal.
brinksmanship = turning off the natural gas and oil spigot to Europe.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 3
Russia has a long way to go before they are a threat. The only thing they are doing is trying to put more chips on the table. This doesn't shift the balance of power really since Russia has more nukes than we could shoot down in the first place. It's nothing but propaganda for the masses at home.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Lord 666 on 9/29/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
Their Georgia invasion was just a warm-up. They have been steadly increasing their flybys of US carriers and airspace.

But what is even scarier would be the potential for not a ground war, but a cyberwar with Russia. With all of the idiots with spyware on their machines, these bots can be quickly turned into a DDoS attack or worse from within US network.

The "Axis of Evil" are both growing and waiting patiently for US to exhust resources until a real conflict starts. Venezula and Russia are real close now. Throw in the potential to poison our food and cut off our supply chain from China, and the US will be hard pressed for WWIII.

Who are the US allies at this point? Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland, UK, France, and Iraq.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2008 11:47:52 AM , Rating: 5
Why should Russia be mad about a missile /defense shield/? One that can't even stop them if they wanted to attack Europe, one we've had them openly tour and get the technological briefings about, one that can't be used as a weapon against them. Really, why are they so upset about it? It's obvious it's just an excuse to justify their moves to attempt to become a world super power again and replace the USA.

Seriously, the US has done little against Russia who was laundering billions illegally through Iraq via the oil for food program before we went in (hence why they were resistant, along with France). Oh, I'm sure the US has slighted them a few times, complained about their back sliding on democracy and civil rights, but that's no different than the usual political mud slinging, and Russia has done nothing but antagonize the US since the start of the new millennium.

Really, this sounds like one of those high school spats were everything is blown out of proportion. Except, this time the squabbling couple both process the fire power to blow this planet into the stone age.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By killerroach on 9/29/2008 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Way to go neocons... Piss off the Russians and make them arm our enemies.


Apologies for the snark, but how is that any different than how the Russians have behaved pretty much constantly for the past sixty years, save a couple of years under the doddering Boris Yeltsin?


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By derwin on 9/30/2008 3:13:37 AM , Rating: 5
It benefits Russia, majorly.

This is not your 1970's cold war anymore. This is definitely not your 1980's cold war anymore.
The US is no longer the "protector of freedom" in the world. We are just another superpower flexing nuts like Russia and China. You don't think the rest of the world looked at Iraq like we saw Georga to be? The world is no on our side anymore - not just militarily.

Our economy is in the dumps. Yeah, it will go on; but can it support a major war? Do we even have the infastructure to convert over to massive arms production?
Can it survive another "cold war?" Without the outpour of citizens to aid the cause, the government is left to foot the bill. We are already in growing debt, and our economy has been running on empty for about four years. We only delayed the inevitable when we dropped interest rates into the basement to forstall the recesions we faced in 2003-4, and now no good deed has gone unpunished. We are not manufacuring. We are not providing raw material. We are not even really providing services anymore - India answers our telephone calls now. We are becoming more and more the middle men of the global economy. We don't have to make it happen, we just make it happen through us.
The world is no longer on the dollar standard though. Our military industrial complex has fewer and fewer allies in need of our arms. Our automotive industry is teetering on the brink of nationalization. We produce iron and coal, but in the 21st century, the world is built on much more exotic materials, many of which are imported - such as most of the materials used in modern day batteries. Finally, one of the larger segments of the US economy - the financial services and banking sector - finally bit the bullet this past month.

We have less and less ground to stand on. As our enimies realize that, they are slowly turning the flames under our feet up. The world will not come to our aid as we have theirs - we always did it with more than a modicum of self interest and that has not gone unnoticed. They have the oil. We have their spite.

When these tensions escalate, things get worse for everyone, but now, they get worse faster for the US - which means others benefit.


By rudolphna on 10/1/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
my god that was the most sensible, rational, thing I have heard in YEARS. Everything in that post was absolutely true. Thats a +6 post if I ever saw one. If we keep going the way we are, before long the US will be economically, a 3rd world country. Everything is going overseas, and people just dont care, because it doesnt directly affect them-yet.


By toyotabedzrock on 9/29/2008 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that currently we have no way to defend against the massive number of missiles Russia already has, and submarines can launch closer to our borders allowing very little time for a defensive missile to intercept it. But i believe they feel repressed by the US economically and it is being manifested in actual aggressive actions, almost the way an animal thats trapped would react.

Perhaps we should offer a limited amount of our missile defense technology to Russia? I'd rather see them develop that than additional nuclear weapons.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Regs on 9/29/2008 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
NATO hasn't exactly been all that subtle in its attempts to forcefully move into Russia's sphere of influence, and as much as missiles in Poland, and Radar In Czech. may seem ok from the West's perspective, please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.


We don't need missiles in Poland when we have Air Force bases in Germany and Turkey that can deliver a tactical nuke by Air. Our delivery systems are a lot more advanced than Russia's, though still doesn't mean it won't bring a holocaust. And Iran? What are they going to do with a nuke? They'll just have to get 300 angry Iranians together so that they can throw it out us. (Ok that was joke).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 3
Israel will deal with the Iran problem, its not really our concern. Russia is NATO's problem, and in a stand up fight NATO would win but in a nuke-fest its a 50/50 split and Russia knows it. Their ability to wage conventional war against a properly equipped enemy is practically non-existant. Most of their aresenal is concentrated in the nuclear arena anyways.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 11:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states. On the conventional war front, neither side would be all that interested in it because its not nearly as profitable to buy and use up your own weapons, as it is to sell said weapons to others to use.

However, one must remember that neither the U.S or Russia holds near the level of convention force power that they did 20 years ago. Further, the U.s is caught in a two front war, and being global hegemonic police man. As the U.S forms the core and backbone and most appendages of NATO militarily, they would not have a very easy time defeating Russia. Go back to around 1989-92 force levels of the U.S and yea I would say NATO then, could certainly defeat Russia now, conventionally. However, when the U.S could only muster approx 1/4 the land force it used to initially liberate Kuwait, this time in Iraq; things get a bit more murky.

I do find it interesting that you call it the 'Iran problem' when it is equally an 'Israeli Problem'. Like it or not the U.S took out a major regional power when it destroyed Iraq and her military. Iran and Israel now sit as opposing regional powers, and neither has bloodless hands. The recent failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and not even Iran proper, certainly signifies that Israel, less her nuclear armament, is not singularly capable of taking on Iran any more.

Because of this, I would prefer that both had nuclear weapons, as then they can get on with accepting each others existence. Nuclear weapons here would serve to nullify the trump card Israel holds over the region, and would further bang home the point that if they really and truly did go at it, it would result in the destruction of both their economies and states as we know them today. Instead of merely speculating that Israel would lose the conventional exchange and resort to a tactical nuclear exchange, which would result in perhaps WW3, and both states becoming glass; both parties would have certainty that a move to overt war would lead to two chunks of once sand now glass emerging through their own hands.

Honestly, Russia has to respond to NATO pressure, and likewise the U.S has to jump in and add the rhetorical propaganda. Which is sad, as it doesn't really have to be this way.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:19:03 PM , Rating: 4
Ah, someone with a handle on the larger issues in play here, cool lets disect.

quote:
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states.

I would argue that in a MAD situation, one of them would likely nuke China back to the stone age in the process. They might not get off as scott free as we might think.

quote:
On the conventional war front, neither side would be all that interested in it because its not nearly as profitable to buy and use up your own weapons, as it is to sell said weapons to others to use.

True enough, thats why much of the Cold War was the US and Soviets playing through third parties in other countries via arms sales, training, insurgencies, etc..... See: Vietnam, S. Korea, Afganistan to name a few.

quote:
However, one must remember that neither the U.S or Russia holds near the level of convention force power that they did 20 years ago.

Sad but true. America's handicap is mostly in the lack of ground troops. Naval and Airpower we have, but ground troops are a small fraction of what Russia or even China can deploy. Russia lacks a Navy or Air Force worth talking about. Russia can also put out more armored divisions than the U.S. mostly of the T-72 variety. But that's what A-10's and M1A1's are for. It would be an interesting matchup.

quote:
Further, the U.s is caught in a two front war, and being global hegemonic police man.

Yea, we are stuck as the world police. Our ability to interdict Russian military action at this point rests solely with the Air Force and Navy, the Marines and Army are otherwise occupied. Still, we could support NATO ground forces fairly well in the theatre. While we are stretched thin, we still have resources to play with.

quote:
As the U.S forms the core and backbone and most appendages of NATO militarily, they would not have a very easy time defeating Russia. Go back to around 1989-92 force levels of the U.S and yea I would say NATO then, could certainly defeat Russia now, conventionally. However, when the U.S could only muster approx 1/4 the land force it used to initially liberate Kuwait, this time in Iraq; things get a bit more murky.

Yea, we could likely stop Russia from invading any of the NATO members, but it would end in a draw since we lack the troops necessary to push back into Russian held territory. The best we could do is utilize the Navy and Air Force to prevent Russia's use of armor and air power, and then use B-2's and F-22's to take out their supply lines. Conventional aircraft could handle any armor/vehicles they try to bring into play. In an air superiority contest the F-22's and F-15's would dismantle Russian air power in short order. Depending on the degree of Anti-Air ground capabilities its an open question if we could use our air superiority to our advantage or rely on drones/cruise missiles.

quote:
I do find it interesting that you call it the 'Iran problem' when it is equally an 'Israeli Problem'. Like it or not the U.S took out a major regional power when it destroyed Iraq and her military. Iran and Israel now sit as opposing regional powers, and neither has bloodless hands.

Precisely. The only reason I refer to it as the Iran problem is that Iran is the only one that has publically said it would nuke Israel off the map. Israel has only responded that it would take away Iran's nuclear capability. Although I bet they would demonstrate their muscle by taking down a number of infrastructure and military targets in the process.

quote:
The recent failure of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and not even Iran proper, certainly signifies that Israel, less her nuclear armament, is not singularly capable of taking on Iran any more.

The problem with Hezbollah is that they aren't a country. You can't carpet bomb or annihilate areas without getting alot of civilians in the way. Iran is a country with a standing military that would be the target. We're not talking about counter-insurgency were talking conventional warfare in which case all targets in your country are valid targets of opportunity. I think Israel has the same problems the U.S. is having in Iraq and Afganistan with trying to kill only insurgents with minimal civilian casualties even though they dress as civilians and set up hideouts in civilian areas. This just complicates the job Israel has to do, I think in a straight war Israel wouldn't hold back and wouldn't give a damn about civilians since its more of a traditional country vs country war.

quote:
Because of this, I would prefer that both had nuclear weapons, as then they can get on with accepting each others existence. Nuclear weapons here would serve to nullify the trump card Israel holds over the region, and would further bang home the point that if they really and truly did go at it, it would result in the destruction of both their economies and states as we know them today. Instead of merely speculating that Israel would lose the conventional exchange and resort to a tactical nuclear exchange, which would result in perhaps WW3, and both states becoming glass; both parties would have certainty that a move to overt war would lead to two chunks of once sand now glass emerging through their own hands.

To be blunt, I don't think MAD would stop one of them from lobbing a nuke at the other, and it definately would not stop the other from a nuclear holocaust in response. The only problem I see is that Iran's delivery systems are primitive at best for delivering a sizeable nuke to a target, it would likely be better to move it by truck than missile. Israel I suspect is using U.S. knock-off guidance systems or maybe even U.S. guidance systems and would be able to hit back with deadly accuracy to anywhere in Iran. Iran would also have far fewer nukes than Israel, who likely has hundreds or more.

quote:
Honestly, Russia has to respond to NATO pressure, and likewise the U.S has to jump in and add the rhetorical propaganda. Which is sad, as it doesn't really have to be this way.

Like two rival gangs trash talking before a fight that might not take place. Yes its pretty bad, but thats how international politics works. Russia always seems to respond with or respond to military power, diplomacy has never worked for them historically.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:31:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It would be an interesting matchup.


No it wouldn't. This ain't cod4. Real people die is such conflicts you know.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do all the evil I can before I learn to shun it? Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.


By overzealot on 9/30/2008 8:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
You cut off the first word.
Must I do...

We could use a few more Ghandi's in this world.


By oab on 9/30/2008 8:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you've never wondered "who would win, NATO or the Warsaw Pact?"

Movies, games, books have all been written on that subject.


By Regs on 9/30/2008 8:33:33 AM , Rating: 3
Well, lol, lets put things in perspective.

The budget for the US military last year including Iraq and Afghanistan was 500 billion dollars. That is the size of half of Russia's entire GDP. Russia has to keep putting these machines into storage, and they can't even afford to man them. 1,000 tanks in storage vs.. one GPS guided bomb = you do the math. China and Russia have a lot of men on reserve, mostly because farming rice is more lucrative than joining their military. Of course if we attack them, they'll more than love to fight for free.

Our standing army is well trained and its leadership has a lot of experience in conflict. Our army would likely double if we ever were attacked (Bombing of Pearl Harbor = "we awoke the sleeping giant").

In other words, the military is just a tool. Though the real force behind the military is the heart of the people.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Tsuwamono on 9/29/2008 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind Canada is still an ally of the USA and NATO. We have a strong desire to help allies in need. Look at WW2, we had a population of 10million people but over a million man military. Now we have 35 million so if we were to use the same percentage(which isn't likely but just for kicks) that would mean a 3.5million man army. Plus the size of the US forces, UK, france, germany, etc. I'm pretty sure NATO would make quick work of a Russian assault.

We probably wouldnt be anywhere near 3.5 million man army anymore but i could see 1.5million realistically in canada if there was a WW3.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm from Canada, personally if you want to start a row with Russia I am moving the hell to Sweden if my country is dumb enough to throw in on a world war.

I'm not enlisting in some grand army of the allies to fight in the last war mankind will probably ever see.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
If they instate a draft you likely won't have a choice. I know if WW3 breaks out I would sign up. I would likely never see front line combat though.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
I would draft dodge all the way, no chance I am going to go die for someones cause.

Chances are I would be 4f anyway for bad knees bad back and generally being adverse to authority.


By mmatis on 9/29/2008 6:25:29 PM , Rating: 3
You'd only have to move to the US and claim conscientious objector status. Osama would be glad to have you.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. There's always someone else to take your place ...


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:17:59 PM , Rating: 1
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?


By oab on 9/30/2008 8:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
Canada has never had a draft, on two occasions in the past 100 years there was conscription, for a two year period each time one in 1917 and one in 1945. In both cases overseas deployment was optional (though encouraged).

I cannot think of any situation where a draft would be required.


By Iketh on 9/29/2008 8:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if my country is dumb enough to throw in on a world war


like noone has learned a damn thing from pearl harbor...


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By arazok on 9/29/2008 4:35:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Well in a Nuke fest, China wins as both the U.S and Russia would devastate the other to the point where they would cease to be functioning states.


Not likely. The Russian nuclear fleet has been neglected for over 20 years. Nuclear warheads are notoriously unstable, requiring lots of maintenance to keep them working. Eventually the plutonium degrades, and they need to be replaced – an expensive endeavor that Russia can hardly afford.

On top of that, the Russian bomber fleet would have it’s ass handed to it by the Americans, and the Americans would have free reign over 100% of Russian territory. Russia’s only hope would be an ICBM launch. These have also been neglected.

In the end, Russia would launch a bunch of ICBM’s, half of which would fail to launch, and of the ones that do, most would fail to detonate. Meanwhile, America would be obliterating every strategic asset in Russia with 100% accuracy. America would have a bloody nose, but Russia would have it’s limbs severed, diced into tiny pieces, and fed to itself on a red white and blue platter.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 6:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
Quite possibly, there is plenty of intel and information that points to Russia having lots of nukes but mostly inoperable and in disarray. Its anyones guess how many can fly, and hit a target, causing detonation. Bombers are no threat, NORAD would pick them up taking off and F-15's and F-22's would be on station before they reached Canadian or Alaskan air space. Their subs are trackable, it's an open secret that the USA can track Russian submarines wherever they go, so I doubt they will be much of a problem. ICBM's and their slick little mobile ICBM's are the wild card here. They could do some heavy damage depending on how many they have on hand ready to fire.


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
War ain't like playing "risk"


By Regs on 10/1/2008 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel will deal with the Iran problem, its not really our concern. Russia is NATO's problem


I'm a little iffy on that statement since we have invested a lot of political capital in Israel over decades. USA has been adamant with diplomatic ties with Israel, making them the wild card or poster child of the middle east. If Iran did, or had the possibility to attack Israel, it would be almost impossible for me to fathom that we wouldn't intervene.


By Ammohunt on 9/29/2008 2:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear weapons maintained by the US are no longer in Europe. Its called the Start II treaty


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By daniyarm on 9/29/2008 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure our delivery systems are a lot more advanced. They have long range strategic bombers, nuclear submarines, and long range missiles with multiple warheads. I don't see how this is any different than what we have.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 3:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's public knowledge that the U.S. weaponry is accurate enough to pick specific door knobs to hit. Russia's are accurate enough to hit a specific city block in theory. They have only ever demonstrated the ability to hit within a mile of the intended target. But when your talking a nuke, accuracy deviation hardly matters. For conventional weapons, Russia is not accurate to say the least.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By mmatis on 9/29/2008 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
As the saying goes, "Close only counts in horseshoes and nukes..."


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
As the saying goes,"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By TA152H on 9/29/2008 10:29:44 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, Putin is a real genius.

The Soviet Union fell apart because they tried to match the U.S. in armaments when their economy was half the size of the United States' economy. Now they will do it with their mutilated half country?

Russia is much smaller, economically, than the Soviet Union, and they can't possibly engage the United States on anything approaching equality. Their people will pay a price they can not, their economy will tank, and they will have more turmoil if they even attempt to match the United States. It's not like the times have changed and the Russians simply need the will to revert to their own form. Huge parts of their country are gone, and, Ukraine is openly hostile to them. They also lost Eastern Europe. So who are their allies?

The United States has a huge economy, as does Western Europe. As I always tell my foreign friends, the United States may not be perfect, but what do you think the world would be like if the Soviet Union had been the only super power that remained? One hint, you wouldn't have them trying to promote democracy in the world. If you look at history there was never a time one country was so dominant, yet the effects of countries that were powerful at the time were far less benign than the United States. Humans are not perfect, and therefore countries are not, but judged by historical measures of abuse by powerful countries (and sometimes even less powerful countries), the United States passes with an A.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By DASQ on 9/29/2008 10:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
To put it short, they're trying to achieve a United States armament on a Canada budget.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
Well, Russia is also going about it in the traditional manner. The U.S. military is focusing on smaller, faster response, stealthy, and always watching. Russia is going with the iron fist approach again with large things that go boom and do lots of collateral damage. Precision and tactical strikes are not in Russia's vocabulary and it never has been.


By Jimbo1234 on 9/29/2008 2:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you're also familiar with the phrase "If brute force isn't working, you're not using enough."


By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your point being that less precise also equals less costly, I assume.

Very true. But they also may be talking about missile defense themselves (it's not perfectly clear). That is the kind of small, fast response, always watching type of system that has very high development costs, high deployment costs, and high maintenance and manning costs. Maybe not as big as their nuclear readiness costs, but it's not chump change, either.

Still, I think Russia can handle a decent amount of Defense spending at the moment - energy prices are good now, and besides, Defense spending is a way to boost a slagging economy - see US Depression/WWII.


By Ammohunt on 9/29/2008 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention Russia still believes in the spoils of war. I.E. the looting an pillaging of Georgia.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings.


By brenatevi on 9/29/2008 10:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Violence has been a time honored tool since the first caveman hit another caveman with a rock just to shut him up. It worked then, so why stop using it?


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
Putin is not going to start building stockpiles of nukes professor... The key to his thinking is a "disproportionate" response. What this suggests to me is supplying weapons to any country that weakens the US sphere of influence. That means Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc. I think the Russians are fully aware that an arms race would not benefit them.


By MAIA on 9/29/2008 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.


By Cunthor666 on 9/29/2008 10:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia is much smaller, economically, than the Soviet Union, and they can't possibly engage the United States on anything approaching equality. Their people will pay a price they can not, their economy will tank, and they will have more turmoil if they even attempt to match the United States.


You are watching the news right? You know, the economy crisis thing in US...?

Russia has re-emerged as a superpower the moment Georgians attacked South Ossetian region, and anyone who thinks Russia is not a threat to US is being just ignorant. What makes you think that Russians won't stop trading oil and gas in USD if push came to shove?

Give them five to ten years, and bipolar system of power will be restored - assuming China doesn't get any bigger in that time.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By theapparition on 9/29/2008 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
please remember how the 'west' felt when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.

Bad analogy.

Russia equiped Cuba with nuclear misiles aimed directly at the US, designed as a offensive weapon. We are proposing equiping Poland (and they are supporting it) with defensive non-nuclear weapons. Big difference.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By raghavny80 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
For my 2 cents, I'd also add that the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good analogy when talking about how Russian nukes in Cuba changed the balance of power in the arms race. The problem with the ABM system is that it changes the balance of power in the whole MAD equation.

If you want to unbalance an equation, you can add to one side or you can subtract from the other. Instead of adding offensive capabilities to the U.S. side, the U.S. has unbalanced the equation by subtracting offensive capabilities from the Russian side. The net effect is the same, though.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By Grast on 9/29/2008 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 4
Firstly, the ABM issue is an excuse by the Russians to justify their military build-up. The ABM being deployed in Europe has 12. That is right 12 interceptors. The ABM system is designed to nullify rogue and single shot missle launches. It was never designed nor capble of nullifing the nuclear capability of the Soviets... Opps I mean Russians.

Secondly, Bush exited the ABM treaties because the Russions were not keeping up their end of the bargan. Additionally at the time, the Russians were unable to economically fund their army. It made sense at that time to consider rogue states with nuclear capability the bigger threat.

Until Putin came into power, the Russians were quite civilized.

Get off of your retoric, Russians wants another arms race. I say we give it to them.


RE: Again Condi with a dumb ass comment....
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 11:49:42 AM , Rating: 1
I'm up for it. We'll win.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 4
We'll win in the long run but it will require a build up of forces around the world by the U.S. and NATO. Technology wise we have Russia beat 10:1, but Russia has a knack for using the zerg rush strategy.


By Radnor on 9/29/2008 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, like the Dead Hand.

That's nuclear carpet bombing. I think it is the vodka really. Its like sniping with a shotgun.


By TerranMagistrate on 9/29/2008 7:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's ok, we'll wax 'em with our protoss-like precision weaponry.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 9:45:15 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately I seem to recall the Protoss losing their homeworld to the Zerg Swarm........


By TerranMagistrate on 9/30/2008 12:39:02 AM , Rating: 3
Well if you take out the Overmind (Putin) like you're supposed to, there won't be any worries about that. Or just mass carriers, that NEVER fails. :)


By raghavny80 on 9/29/2008 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."


By Josett on 9/29/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sigh. Again Condi opens her mouth and spews forth something silly. (...) To continuously poke a regional / re-entrant global power the way NATO has; is to invite a show of strength... Perhaps even require it.


Still the best analysis in this thread.

Seems that most posters are unaware that 'there's life' beyond the USA borders... and, that the 'colour' of a given empire is only as lively as it lasts.


By jhb116 on 9/29/2008 10:50:40 PM , Rating: 3
So your age long rant (in blog time) has established you as an anti- Dr. Rice fan at best, "hate all things Republican" at worst.

The ABM treaty, or lack there of, has little, if anything, to do with the current state of affairs. Russian/Soviet Union and US had ABM technology well before the US scrapped ABM.

The most likely real problem is that Russia probably feels surrounded by NATO on the West and China in the East. I will agree that this administration needs to spend some time working with the Russians and the next administration needs to spend alot of time repairing relations with the Russia.


The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
Did anyone else think for a moment or two that Russia might have given a thought to retaking Georgia last month? Given Putin's drumbeat of nationalistic pride, that move would have gone a long way towards taking Russia up a notch. The only thing that prevents him from doing so is the threat of a potentially nuclear response from the US. MAD is no longer guaranteed with our new ABM system. That may be the only reason they did not take Georgia, or Ukraine for that matter. Russia could care less about western sanctions against it; they have enough liquidity to do essentially anything they want. I personally do not believe that we would engage Russia with nuclear weapons, we just don't have the balls to do so. At worst, we would rely upon NATO to send a sternly worded letter that they would laugh at (which is exactly was has happened).

I believe it is a very real possibility that Putin will indeed attempt to broaden his borders and retake previously held states. Sad to say, I think he will get away with it if he choses to do so, as the West does not have the stomach for the the level of engagement that would occur trying to stop him. His fury at the ABM system almost telegraphs his future intentions.




RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 10:24:44 AM , Rating: 3
"West does not have the stomach for the the level of engagement"

To prove that point, why would we invade Iraq to stop alledged WMDs, when we have known WMDs in the hands of a beligerant N.Korea and we do nothing? One is a battle (we think) we can win, the other is a battle that would be too bloody for our tastes (due to China's likely involvement).


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 11:59:19 AM , Rating: 3
I never said they were evil and dangerous, simply interested in regaining their national pride and hightening their status on the world stage. Losing so many of their former territories to the west is a big blow to both of those goals. They may be able to regain these areas without firing a shot by, as you suggested, increasing their dependence upon Russia for resources.

I am concerned about what would happen if a democratic state, such as Georgia, were to be forcibly retaken by Russia. I don't think that there would be much NATO or the US could do about it without sparking a massive mess. Their membership into NATO will likely be delayed indefinitely for this reason, since we would be compelled by charter to defend them.

What part of any of this involves me 'screaming my head off'? You need not worry about me 'using my brain', for I am a f*cking noob, and will be downrated into submission in short order.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I never said they were evil and dangerous, simply interested in regaining their national pride and hightening their status on the world stage.


This is actually the key to where we diverge on our opinions. I think that all of this can be done without acquiring any additional territory.
For example, they started strategic bomber flights again. Is that a threat to anyone? Nope, but it sends a message that they are a force to be reckoned with. They've also sent advisers to China to help with the Chinese space program, and I'm sure the Chinese spacewalk would not be done without them. Does a Chinese spacewalk change the balance of power in space? Of course not, they've only cought up by 40 years. But it has the effect of combining Russia and China against the US.
It's all a game with perception. And they can make themselves look powerful without doing much at all. The reason I overreacted to your comment is the implication that they will resort to imperialism. I find that dubious.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By James Wood Carter on 9/29/2008 7:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
I Think China has no choice but to get its help from Russia unless they want to do it themselves - which is unlikely since there is help available. Since US refuse to help out in that sense - But its quickly changing as US has laxed its ban in space coperations.
Relations between Russia and China isn't strong as many like to think - its mostly for strategic reasons just as any country would form close ties as long as they both benefit from it. I presume that if US formed closer ties with China we would be better off - which btw seems to be the current direction unless Mccain steps into office
I seriously doubt China would intervene with other people's wars unless it has its stakes on the line. Seriously i'm sick of reading aobut fears of China this and that since 1978 China has focused much more on its economic reforms than on foreign conflicts and they'll probably continue to do so. They will also continue their space program perhaps not just to compete but of the gains from all the R&D as well as national pride. just look at their faces when they saw their own home bred astraunouts sucessfully returned - hehe some even cried.
Anyway i see that comming years ties between Russia and China would be less important and that our (USA) ties with China would be more valued.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Ringold on 9/30/2008 2:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I presume that if US formed closer ties with China we would be better off - which btw seems to be the current direction unless Mccain steps into office


I know you dislike all things Republican, but it was bipartisan congressional verbal attacks on China with threats of what would've amounted to a trade war a year or two ago that lead to a 1000 some economists of both parties to sign a petition to attempt to stop what they feared would be the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the new century. Our relationship with China depends almost entirely upon trade relations. Despite your partisanship, surely you can understand by looking at both candidates websites and listening to campaign speeches that McCain is the free trader while Obama is the one who features trade bashing as a standard issue stump speech item.

I mean, hell, McCain will probably lose Michigan if for no other reason than because he reliably goes there and tells them their jobs are gone, free trade is good, get the hell over it and retrain for new jobs. Thats as pro-China/trade as a politician can get. McCain's entire campaign may flop because of his free market beliefs; the right beliefs to have but at the wrong time politically.

Anyway, I agree, stronger US-China ties will become more important, if for no other reason than because they're going to become huge.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Grast on 9/29/2008 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry,

But your statement regarding the ABM system is incorrect. The ABM system in europe will only have 12 interceptors. The ABM was designed to eliminate the threat of single launches from rogue states or groups. The ABM poses no threat to changeing the balance of power for MAD.

ABM is an excuse by the Russians to bolster their military build-up.

Later..


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 1
Oh I agree entirely, however, it is their perception of the ABM's capabilities that destabilizes MAD.


RE: The furtherance of Imperialism
By Jim28 on 9/30/2008 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Whose perception? The russians are very smart, they know what this abm system can do and what it can't in thorough detail.

The only MAD changing perceptions are false ones, and the fact that they are playing on like perceptions all over the world.
If this system were a capable SDI type of system, then yes MAD is changed. You can't credibly tell me that the removal of 12 warheads out of several thousand affects the balance of power with MAD.

Like the previous poster said. This is an excuse nthing more. It is aboout strategic goals and controlling the energy supplies of Europe.


Of course it's our fault...
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2008 8:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
Why hasn't Putin been assassed? Who nerfed the CIA?




RE: Of course it's our fault...
By kiwik on 9/29/2008 8:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
Because the FSB (Russia's KGB) is watching for BLU spies approaching the VIP.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By filipenko on 9/29/2008 9:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
And because once you open that door, there will always be some KGB boys waiting for some presidents, too...Perhaps on their own ranches.

September 11th? Just imagine what kind of terror could be instigated by the organized secret forces of a giant country...


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Darkskypoet on 9/29/2008 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Funny in a sense; see Afghanistan part n-1 (n being present conflict). Except there 'The West' backed the 'Taliban' or what would become the Taliban, and the 'Soviets' backed the 'Northern Alliance' (Afghanistan Communist Party). Further, 'terrorists' were 'Freedom Fighters', and Osama bin laden was a 'friend' and not an 'enemy'.

The resultant mess played a major role in bankrupting the USSR, and furthering the 'failed state' status of Afghanistan that gave a group called 'Al-Queda' a base of operations, military training, weapons, etc.

Hmm... funny that. Amazing when events play out that fall out of one's control. Especially when involving the 'secret' forces of a large country. Funnier still when the next party fails to learn any lessons from the first attempt. Hubris is still alive and kicking - perhaps as universal as death and taxes?


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Regs on 9/29/2008 10:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
So, you're saying we should use our time machine and go back and let the USSR topple them? The future always changes, but the past will always stay the same.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Fnoob on 9/29/2008 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 4
Funny, history books always seem to change depending upon the storyteller...


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Regs on 10/1/2008 7:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent point. Though no matter what truth you use, it's easy to say "should-of, could-of, would-of", when we know what the unpredictable consequences it could of lead to in the future. The solutions are always more easier to figure out when the problem is no longer relevant.


RE: Of course it's our fault...
By Ringold on 9/30/2008 2:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except there 'The West' backed the 'Taliban'


Historical inaccuracy to make a partisan point?

The West 'backed' the Mujahideen, which the Taliban overthrew. The Northern Alliance, according to all the references I can find, or more accurately perhaps the UIF, appears to of been the remnants of the mujahideen, not the old Soviet lackeys. I'm not sure where your characterizations come from, except perhaps it applies the maximum possible anti-US spin.


Very low...
By filipenko on 9/29/2008 8:54:07 AM , Rating: 1
What a shallow article. It states that Russia is agressive towards someone, and that it invaded Georgia, where Gerogian troops attacked first on Russian peacekeeping forces. What would be the American response if someone attacked their troops in Iraq or in Kosovo?

Also, it states that Russia is instigating new cold war. False again, US is instigating it with nuclear shields and by refusing to sign morratorium on developing nuclear weapons further..

Never saw any Russian troops invading countries thousands of miles from their homeland just to exploit their natural resources, i.e. oil.




RE: Very low...
By stilltrying on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very low...
By Dribble on 9/29/2008 10:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
That's like saying America invaded Florida. You can't *invade* part of your own Country.


RE: Very low...
By maven81 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very low...
By bigboxes on 9/29/2008 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The day I recognize Ossentian independence is the day Russia recognizes Chechnian independence. You can't have it both ways. Georgia is a sovergn independent country with S. Ossentia as part of it's territory. To dispute that is ignorant. If there are a lot of Georgians of Russian descent in S. Ossentia doesn't mean that they should join with mother Russia. Any more than the overwhelming number of Americans of Mexican descent in El Paso should join Mexico. Acutally, what Russia has traditionally done is conquer nearby countries and then move their own people in to dilute the local natives (similar to China and Tibet).

I'm not saying that the Americans haven't pushed the Russians into a corner. It's just that this cry of poor ethnic Russians is an excuse and not the real reason for the invasion.


RE: Very low...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
You just defeated your own arguement. Chechnya is part of Russia, so if you're ok with part of Russia getting their independence, then you should be ok with what you claim to be part of Georgia to get theirs. You also conveniently neglected to reply about Kosovo... why is ok for Kosovo to be independent, but not Ok for Osetia? There's no logic there.
But the "poor ethnic Russians" as you put it are only an excuse for the media. This is just a demonstration to Sakashvili that he should stay put and not mess with the status quo.


RE: Very low...
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 3:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you can. It's called hypocrisy.

But seriously, hypocrisy may not be the problem here. Saying Chechnya and South Ossetia should be treated the same is like saying all cars should cost the same amount, or that all clothes should be the same size. Each conflict has a large number of factors, and one solution doesn't fit all geopolitical situations. The U.S. doesn't want Northern Iraq to become Kurdistan (or South Ossetia to become independent), but wanted Kosovo to be independent. There are so many factors that go into determining whether an area should be independent. That area's desire for independence may be a factor, but it isn't the only one. To dispute that is ignorant. (And I think the adjective is Chechen, not Chechnian.)

I'd add Israel in Palestine, and Iraq in Kirkuk, and Sudan in Darfur, &c, &c, to your examples of diluting local natives. And, in the reverse, America in the Southeast with the Trail of Tears. Ethnic cleansing isn't just violent conflict. But that doesn't make it any less unjust. It's a tragedy everywhere, and it certainly occurred in Soviet-held territories. But you misunderstand the situation here. Ossetians aren't Russians. They may want to affiliate with Russia politically, but they are a distinct ethnic group. They speak a distinct language. They have a distinct culture.

I'm sure on a topic as heated as South Ossetia, Wikipedia is a dubious resource, but the history section seems pretty decent on South Ossetia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#History

The internet is great for the free exchange of bite-sized ideas. But international politics is too complex to be distilled into bite-sized aphorisms, and too intricate to work in any axiomatic fashion.


RE: Very low...
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
I support what you say in principle, but I disagree with your facts. The entire world recognized South Ossetia as part of Georgia. One could argue that that recognition was only to maintain the status quo, since South Ossetia was indeed de facto independent, but it's easier not to rock any boats by actually supporting that independence.

People also ignore the fact that Russia, by treaty, was obliged to preserve the ceasefire, and defend the South Ossetians. So Russia's actions (excepting any violations of the laws of war), were certainly legitimate. Of course, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should, nor that there won't be repercussions, especially in how you're viewed by others.

As a parallel, you may have a right to espouse white supremacy (if you're not in Germany), but I have a right not to be nice to you if you do.

In the end, one could say both sides were stupid.


Mutual trust
By ihova01 on 9/29/2008 9:56:30 AM , Rating: 4
So you don't trust Russia... Why should Russia trust you?




RE: Mutual trust
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
In America, you distrust Putin.
In Soviet Russia, Putin distrust you!

Yakov Strikes Again!!!!
Sorry. Couldn't resist.


RE: Mutual trust
By ihova01 on 9/30/2008 12:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
In US, do you even know where Russia is?

In Soviet US (considering the famous bail-out), do you trust Bush?

Crazy! LOL


What the real argument is about
By jimbojimbo on 9/29/2008 3:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
The butter goes on the top of the toast!




RE: What the real argument is about
By jimbojimbo on 9/29/2008 3:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just hoping at least one person here knows what I'm talking about. If not, I'll be sorely disappointed.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 6:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am well aware of the Dr. Seuss book about the Buttered side of the toast which was a coy way of talking about the Cold War. Interesting lesson to be contained in a childrens book however.


Take your nukes and stick it up your ass
By cokbun on 9/29/2008 3:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not even american and it's funny how iran, n korea, russia are saying ' i have a nuke ! I have a nuke ! ' what are you trying to do exactly? Start a nuclear war ? with the U.S ? You think there's a chance in hell you will prevail ? Dont you remember what happened to saddam hussein ? They freaking hang him and the peopIe cheered for them! I know iran and n. korea is ruled by sick people but now russia too ? come on, it makes me sick to see you act like showing off you have the biggest penis of all.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
Well, there is definately some truth to the Reds (Iran, N.Korea, Russia) that whenever they dislike a situation or aren't getting their way they wave nukes around in a temper tantrum.


Russia will invade the USA
By corduroygt on 9/29/2008 1:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
1. Russia is going to launch an US invasion with Blimps and Dolphins with explosives on them, as well as land forces from Mexico.
2. Yuri is going to mind control US missile base personnel so they won't be able to fire back.
3. The US will eventually win.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 1:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Squids man, not dolphins. Dolphins were allied units. FAIL!


That kid. . .
By Fronzbot on 9/29/2008 8:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
This scares me. Ignoring a nuclear campaign in an increasingly hostile nation is a bad thing to do, it's just going to make Russia angrier (and by Russia I mean that asswipe Putin). He's like that kid from High School everyone hated because he would do anything to get attention from the "popular" kids.

Then he brings a 12 gauge to school and goes nuts.
(Colbalt blue steel, walnut stock and a hair trigger. Shop smart, shop S-Mart)




RE: That kid. . .
By ianweck on 9/29/2008 8:16:35 PM , Rating: 1
"Well hello Mister Fancypants. Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit... and Jack just left town."

Great flick.


Russia is fueled by oil...
By Suomynona on 9/29/2008 9:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
Russia is only able to be so belligerent lately because they're getting rich off of high oil prices. If this isn't an incentive to stop using more oil, than what is? Even if the US isn't buying a lot of oil directly from them, our high demand drives up prices around the world, giving Russia more money and more leverage.




By Guttersnipe on 9/29/2008 9:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
instead of investing in anything important they will toss away their cash on weapons. what else does russia make? squat besides gas. no cultural or technological contribution.... just a small man pounding his chest.




Doomsday Machine?
By fleshconsumed on 9/29/2008 11:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
Because that was my first thought when I read "guaranteed nuclear deterrent system".




Watch Family Guy
By svenkesd on 9/29/2008 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
In Soviet Russia, car drives you.




By adder on 9/29/2008 1:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
well all this talk about russia arent we forgetting chinese build up and there ally pakistan,whose troops are firing at US choppers and even helping terrorists,and in interviews with EX cia agents they are all worried about pakistan since there ISI was caught selling nuke tech to north korea and al Qaeda had been and still are trying to procure nukes.




Yay!
By gevorg on 9/29/2008 3:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the point?
By lijenstina on 9/29/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I like this kind of "brainstorming". Its futile...
But i know who ultimately is going to pay the eventual sh*ing contest between world powers.
Small countries will be used as toilet paper afterward.
Probably just as mine was.




By Guttersnipe on 9/29/2008 4:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
google up russias nashi youth cult if you want to see how distorted their society has become.

its the hitler youth reborn russian style.




I don't know if I'm too young
By JosefTor on 9/29/2008 4:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
I just barely missed the cold war when growing up so I don't know if I just don't understand the severity of these issues but...

whenever Russia acts up and tries to act tough I just chuckle and think of someone with short person syndrome.




i think....
By inperfectdarkness on 10/6/2008 8:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
i'm going to go home and watch "Dr. Strangelove".




Damn Ruskies!
By Cybertoxic on 9/29/2008 9:07:22 AM , Rating: 1
Now if we could just bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead...




Russia is very dangerous
By Beenthere on 9/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Russia is very dangerous
By LaughinAtYa on 9/29/2008 9:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone in the world should be very concerned over Russia's aggressive and imperialistic behavior.


LOL.
- Pot, meet kettle...


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 3:44:11 PM , Rating: 1
You should of titled your post, Humans are very dangerous.

We are no better just because from our point of view we are the good guys.


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By bobny1 on 9/29/2008 8:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing holding Rusia, venezuela and China together is OIL. They are taking advantage of the global mess to show their paws. Onece the Iraqi war is over and the energy crisis gets under control, they are going to retrieve to hibernation.


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By Batmn on 9/29/2008 8:38:17 PM , Rating: 1
Ok I am russian, i am very tired right now - the crisis is killing me... But I cannot not to react ) to this bs talks going on here about my country. Sorry. I'll make it short though:
1. Russia is not dangerous - not any more than any souvereign state or a government. We do not want no war or any kind of conflicts. Now I'm gonna tell you one thing, it is kind of "insider'" info, it is maybe even a secret information sealed with seven stamps... Well, ok here it comes - remember it guys, you may not gonna beleive it becsause it just blows away your coldwar' mind and just simply doesn't coincide with what you know and think, now here it is at last - Russia wants nothing but DOING BUSINESS in PEACE and TRANQUILITY. So many things happened here during the last century so that it doesn't even come to you in your nightmare dreams you might have, cold-war-only-thought people. All you saw in the movies we had it for real - our country is like several thousands years old, you know. We had all sorts of things: We had wars, revolutions, killings of our own people by millions of people per several months.... Many, many bad things. And now we want to simply live and do business - that's all. Put it down somewhere - you not gonna get it with the first attempt I guess. Reread it later - think about it and you may see the world the way it really is in 2008.
2. Russia, or we, did NOT attack the frigging georgian country. Just nothing to add to it. It was a reaction to mass people killing in osetia INCLUDING russian citizens. YES, we did invade the very Georgian territory, but ONLY to destroy the support fire. You must have seen how the brave georgian flew in nothing but underpants - they didn't even try to defend their own country. All they can do is killing people while they are asleep.
3. Use of nuclear weapon? lol thats too funny. As much as impossible. Why? Because it will put an end to all of the disputs everywhere forever... Cuz everybody gonna be dead ok? ) Noone will intercept noones missiles - it is not possible. Not every misslie at least for certain.
4. Some say western europe wants to start war with russia or russia wants to start war with europe. It is as stupid as the beginning of the nuclear war between Russia and US. The economics between europe and Russia become more and more bound and mutually dependant with every year. You have no idea on how incredibly large projects start up every year. The sums of money involved correspond to the current americain stockmarket bailout(almost rejected already). So noone even thinks about war here.

Now, what's so special about my post which contrdicts so much to everything you, or most of you think? The special thing is that it is TRUE. You may really copy this post or simply remeber it - because it's how it REALLY is now here in Russia. I know what I am talking about. Now you may go back to your coldwar theme msturbation and have fun ))


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By allnighter on 9/30/2008 3:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well, i personally think you're full of $hit.
See, there was this Bulgarian clairvoyant woman called Baba Vanga, or "Grandma Vanga" that foretold the WW3 to begin in 2010. You're just trying to get us all caught off guard while you Russians go about your evil plans.
But you forgot all about Baba Vanga.
But we haven't and we'll be ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By safcman84 on 9/30/2008 7:46:49 AM , Rating: 1
What? Russia will never start WW3. It can't. It would be economically bankrupt within a week.

1 day after the Russians invaded Georgia stocks fell 33%, and they had to stop trading. This was caused by foreign investors pulling their money out of the country.

Neither China or Russia can economically survive a war on the scale you people are talking about. National isolation would cripple them. Same for the USA, could you guys afford a war on a massive scale, given what the Iraq war has cost you?

We live in a global market. Huge countries like china and russia need the USA and Europe to sell their goods too. and we need them to provide oil (europe gets alot of oil from russia), cheap manufactured goods and other products the EU and USA no longer produces.

All this aggressive posturing and fist shaking is only that and nothing more.

In fact, I am willing to bet that all this Russian manoeuvring is to secure its own future, by securing oil passage, rather than trying to endanger anybody elses future. Think about, you are a big country, and the only thing keeping your economy going is fuel reserves and pipe lines that go through your territory - i.e. you are very isolated. Then the EU and its USA allies plan to pull oil through a separate pipeline that excludes russia - potentially, in their eyes, isolating them even more. but you (russia) cant say that or admit it, so they cook up some excuse to destabilise the region and make building this new pipeline a much greater risk. Georgian war anyone? That is the reason russia risked dropping their stock markets by 33%, to secure their energy future and make sure they are not left isolated.

Its not some scheme to take over the world and start WW3. no country could afford to do that these days.


RE: Russia is very dangerous
By neofox on 9/30/2008 3:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
Russia is dangerous, lol

Power fallin in the wrong hands is dangerous, no matter in wich country is it.

P.S. Not worry guys Klingon war ship is behind Jupiter we'll be wiped soon for creatin a space parking :p


Dmitry...
By ViroMan on 9/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Dmitry...
By killerroach on 9/29/2008 8:49:01 AM , Rating: 4
So Hitler was a puppet too?

Sure, it's Medvedev who has the claim to the power in Russia, but make no mistake; it's still Vladimir Putin's country.

Once a KGB head, always a KGB head.


RE: Dmitry...
By dreddly on 9/29/2008 8:54:16 AM , Rating: 4
The disconnect here is remarkable.

The US is belligerent internationally, and we know that is ok because they are benign.

The US causes an international financial crisis because of unregulated greed and that is ok because the middle class will pay for the bailout.

The US places its ABM in Poland, has president candidates that are openly hostile towards Russia, and when Russia responds, it is a Russian problem...


RE: Dmitry...
By filipenko on 9/29/2008 9:03:50 AM , Rating: 5
Great post here!

But pointless. It's enough to see what kind of morrons are running for presidency in USA. If it was some small country, it would be laughable. But since it's a supergiant from which entire world depends, it's horrifying. Obama + Baiden or McCain + Palin? My God :(


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 10:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
O'Bama if you want change. Some budget cuts. Doesn't necessarily pull out of Iraq just yet but instead would go into Pakistan and whatever country we should be going into that Al-queda are hiding in. (No more safe places). Which I agree with because we have given them 10 billion only to have them do nothing and Al-Queda take crack shots at our troops to which were not allowed to fire back. Will support nuclear and alternative energy sources and will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.


You claim to be a republican but you want to vote in a socialist? What have you been watching the Commi News Network for all your coverage?

Obama reduce the budget? What budget other than the military budget? He wants to drastically expand the budget with more welfare, more medicare, socialized medicine, etc. Where have you seen that Obama is for nuclear energy either? He wants wind and solar which are insanely expensive (which he'll subsidize with our money).

And you're a die hard republican but you don't like Palin? A true conservative. Someone who's for getting rid of road blocks to drilling, for getting rid of illegals, etc.

You're full of crap in your statement that you're a republican in my mind. I'm no huge McCain fan but to attack Palin is inexcusable.


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 11:08:14 AM , Rating: 1
I guess you didnt watch the debate? Well here is a transcript link for you. Maybe you can read?

OBAMA
What we're going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology. And, you know, I've got a plan for us to make a significant investment over the next 10 years to do that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.miss...

Palin:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningn...

Palin does remind me of somone: Seem familiar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 11:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
One more Palin has become the focus of Saturday Night Live skits because she is so well the clip is priceless.

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/09/28/saturday-night-l...


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 12:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Umm..that interview with Couric was spot on. She doesn't like the bailout. She thinks consumers who were dumb and lenders who were dumb should deal with the consequences (of course a lot of lenders were forced into giving these loans).

Please point out the bad to me.


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 12:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
She doesn't ever really answer the questions posed. Do you not see that? There is no actual Answer in any of her statements. She is also clueless about McCains dealings.

These are statement acknowledging she either doesn't know or does know but doesn't want to admit it.
-----
Palin: I would hope that's not the case.

Palin: And I would hope that's the case
-----

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

She just talked up McCain on these issues then why cant she name one? How can someone ramble about McCain but cant give a single example?

Watch the Saturday night live clip they get it right. Every time she talks it gets worse. Palin is dragging McCain down. He wouldn't seem so bad except Palin is a train wreck.


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 2:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're taking one quote. And she said her answer before that. Of her knowledge of the situation.

quote:
My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.


quote:
Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.


As far as Palin finding examples of McCain pushing for more regulation, I hope she doesn't find any examples. Because most regulation is unneeded. Usually the only time regulation is needed is when the government has gone in and screwed things up to start with. But McCain has pushed for regulating carbon emissions. Which I don't agree with. And Obama supports it too. They both say they believe in the global warming crap. Palin doesn't but she has to support McCain so she tries to sidestep around it by saying she thinks the climate is changing but only that.


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with Palin is she keeps talking when she should have stopped. She lets out an additional sentence or rambles on and gets herself into hot water almost contradicting what she just said. Or she doesn't even realize she was asked a question. Every time she talks I find myself going what was the question? She tangents so far off course I lose track of what she is supposed to be talking about.

She should certainly be able to back up her comments with some sort of verifiable source. She doesn't.

McCain talks about cutting programs that spend money for useless projects yet he picked a running mate that does this sort of stuff? This worries me because they didn't do the homework on her. He basically went looking for a Woman to counter Hillarys (woman vote) instead of looking for a good running mate. I would certainly like to see a woman running but not this one.

Like in my opening comments I think they are both good candidates but Palin is killing McCain's chances. I seriously hope you watch the debate when Palin takes the stage Thursday October 2nd.

If McCain didn't have Palin then I would be more on the fence. I particularly found McCain's body language quite disturbing in the debate.


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
No sorry I don't watch candidates repeating the same things they've already said a thousand times. If you don't have a clear idea of the candidates before the debates, then you don't have a clue.


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 12:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
You prefer to take the word of speech writers who have rewritten the words of your future president for political correctness over their actual words in an open debate to the people?


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Umm..McCain asked Obama to debate him in open town hall debates. Not one where the questions are known. Obama refused. And you're worried about speech writers? The presidential debates they prepare for. They come up with answers beforehand.

Obama sucks on stage when he doesn't have an answer prepared because he can't say what he really thinks.


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 2:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Obama refused because those town hall debates would be free publicity for McCain. Instead of paying for airtime McCain thought he could just get the stations to broadcast his speeches for free. And that's exactly what this would boil down to, speeches. McCain has demonstrated that he has absolutely no desire to engage Obama in a real debate. He didn't even look at him during friday's debate, and all he could come up with was "he doesn't understand!!!"


RE: Dmitry...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:37:33 AM , Rating: 3
I seem to recall Obama not supporting Nuclear, but was for the other alternatives like Hyrdo, Geothermal, Solar, and Wind. Otherwise both candidates are pretty much the same. Obama doesn't have the political clout or backing to make any sweeping changes in Washington, neither does McCain for that matter. Neither one will be able to pull out of Iraq, the international backlash would be horrendous.

Obama talks about restoring the USA's image internationally, but conducting operations on foreign soil where we suspect terrorists are hiding like Obama is suggesting is probably not the best way to do that. Not that I disagree with doing it, but its probably going to work against his position on US image on the world stage.

As for the debate, I really hate debates like this. I know the media loves them because they have sound bytes, video clips, and statements on a center stage to analyze and throw around for days if not weeks. I also disagree with the sidetracking that always seems to take place. This debate was largely overshadowed by economics even though that wasn't a topic for this debate. If your going to set the topics before hand, don't change them last minute because you want to discuss something else. And of course you always get both sides declaring victory, because it is very rare in a debate to have a real winner.


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I seem to recall Obama not supporting Nuclear,


That's just Republican Spin. What he actually said was that he will support it if we sort out where to store or how to process the resulting nuclear waste. That's a far cry from "Obama doesn't support nuclear".


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 11:23:16 AM , Rating: 1
There's a lot of republican spin regarding obama... Hell I just finally convinced some Christian conservitives in my group that he is in fact, a christian (that took a while)...

Now just last night one of them piped up with "well there isn't a whole lot of difference between obama and mccain except obama is going to nationalize the whole economy"... this was a smack forehead moment for me. Had to correct with first of all what's going on is the federal government is going to pony up several billion to buy out all the bad realestate debt. Secondly this process is being started on teh bush watch, not obama or mccain watch. Thirdly both obama and mccain support this action, because frankly it's our last ditch effort to avoid a major economic panic and possibly second great depression.


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there's absolutely no spin surrounding Palin. The reason they're focusing on her so much is because they know she's a threat. They know conservatives love her. And they know many women want to vote for a woman. Of course to me that's a dumb reason to vote for someone just like all the black people who are going to vote for Obama solely because he's black.

Fact is that if Hillary had been picked as Obama's VP nominee, the media would be doing nothing but lavishing praise on her. No bringing up all the crap she's done and been involved with. They've really got nothing on Palin so any and every little thing they can twist, they're doing so as much as possible.

The media's actions surrounding Palin have been deplorable. But they see nothing wrong with largely ignoring Obama's connections with known domestic terrorists. Or the rest of his shady past.


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 12:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes... it's the media attacking poor old Sarah.

Uh if this broad can't stand up to a question, how the hell is she going to negotiate with world leaders?

"so, about that military base... are you removing it or not?"
"uh... I'll get back to ya!"

Are you nuts? Now Fox is saying that if she gets asked about foreign policy during the debate it's going to be unfair because Biden knows much more about foreign policy. So... knowing more then your opponent is unfair now...
And women are not as stupid as you think they are... They aren't going to vote for someone who thinks that abortions are bad even if you get raped.
I also don't know how you could say they have nothing on Palin with a straight face... Um the bridge to nowhere ring a bell? 3 Million for Seal DNA? Trooper Gate? Her husband's shady past? The fact that she can't form a single sentence?

You can't have it both ways FIT... if she's tough as a pit bull and ready on day one, she better be able to give some basic answers. This is ridiculous.


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 12:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
And there is going to be a lot of white people who vote for McCain simply because Obama is black so the Black vote for Obama is a weak statement to make.

Hillary has nothing to do with the campaign here. Sure she is no Angel but she is not in the running for Vice President.

They cant seem to find anything interestingly bad about Baiden can they? No Saturday night live skits on him because he isn't out there making a fool of himself like Palin is with her poor or lack of knowledge.

The media follow Palin because she is a train wreck the same reason they followed Britney Spears for so long. People love train wrecks.

Obama and the democrats never seem to talk about Palin its the media that reports on Palin and the bad press. How is that Obama spin?


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 1:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow dude... For starters we were discussing Obama and not Palin... Secondly everything I said is absolutly 100% true, thirdly see my esteemed associates post regarding Palin and inabilities to answer questions and or lack of forgin policy knowlege.

Seriously guy, get off your "evil liberal media" kick alright? Oh and just so you know, not everyone universally loves hillary. I for one am glad she's not on the ticket.


RE: Dmitry...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 5:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a lot of republican spin regarding obama... Hell I just finally convinced some Christian conservitives in my group that he is in fact, a christian (that took a while)...


Anyone can say they are a Christian.

A persons religion bears no factor on who I choose as a president. But I have to crack up a little on the inside when I hear a hopelessly Liberal socialist like Obama deliver stiff and fake platitudes about his faith. Honestly, who is he kidding ?

Christian Democrat is pretty much an oxymoron in any case. And do I honestly have to explain why that is ?


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 6:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please... First address the hypocrisy of the Christian right, who for example call abortion murder on the one hand, but have no problems calling for the death of doctors that perform the procedure. Or sending soldiers to their death for no reason. Talk about them Christian values!


RE: Dmitry...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 6:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you call yourself a Christian doesn't mean you can be bat shit crazy.

I'll admit I'm very out of touch with Christianity as of late, but I find it hard to believe Christian leadership is " calling for the deaths of doctors ". I think your bringing up a few crazy extremist to bolster your argument. I would thinking " calling for the murder " would violate that whole " not kill " law and a bunch of other rules and beliefs wouldn't it ? At that point I don't think your dealing with a Christian at all.

quote:
Or sending soldiers to their death for no reason.


* rolls eyes *

So any Christian politician MUST be a pacifist ? Is that what your saying here ?

And when did I bring up values ??


RE: Dmitry...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 5:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's just Republican Spin. What he actually said was that he will support it if we sort out where to store or how to process the resulting nuclear waste. That's a far cry from "Obama doesn't support nuclear".


Thats typical Democrat deflection of an issue. Its not an answer at all. Thats like saying " I will support petroleum when all emissions are eliminated ". Uhhh, aren't you deflecting the meaning of the question ? Of course you are and you know it Obama.

Just like his magical " we can get all the oil we'll need from keeping our tires at the right pressure and doing tune ups " idiotic statement. Its a cowardly copout and it doesn't MEAN anything.

It insults my intelligence honestly, which is probably why you and others buy into it. Get smarter for god sakes.

And seeing as how the media uses 99% of its coverage time on Obama/Bidden, I'm not seeing ANY " Republican spin " on anything. Are you ?


RE: Dmitry...
By Mitch101 on 9/29/2008 6:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take the answer from Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1...

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats typical Democrat deflection of an issue. Its not an answer at all.

What are you trying to say, that it's impossible to store nuclear waste safely? You're insulting OUR intelligence. The answer is obvious to anyone except you I guess. Yes, he supports nuclear power.
Just like his magical " we can get all the oil we'll need from keeping our tires at the right pressure and doing tune ups " idiotic statement."

Except that he didn't actually say that. That was a response to a specific question, when someone at a town hall asked him "what can I do to help the situation?" He said that keeping your tires inflated would improve your gas mileage. He didn't say that this was his energy policy...
But nice try with the Fox talking points and fake outrage.


RE: Dmitry...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 6:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, because he prefaced his answer by saying " all this oil they ( republicans ) are talking about drilling, we can get the same from .... "

So yes, he most clearly WAS saying we didn't need to drill and all we needed to do was keep our tires and oil checked.

Nice try.


RE: Dmitry...
By MAIA on 9/29/2008 7:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves.


RE: Dmitry...
By bupkus on 9/29/2008 11:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
After Bush almost anyone could do the job.


RE: Dmitry...
By RamarC on 9/29/2008 9:04:07 AM , Rating: 1
and don't forget the US tried to force N Korea to allow unrestricted access to all nuclear research labs. that push made Russia and China withdraw their backing and now they're siding with the N Koreans because of US bullying.


RE: Dmitry...
By MrBlastman on 9/29/2008 9:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
I would much rather see the proliferation of Missile Defense Systems than Nuclear weapons themselves...


RE: Dmitry...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Dmitry...
By alpensiedler on 9/29/2008 9:41:15 AM , Rating: 5
no offense to you, but that anti white website you linked is disgusting.


RE: Dmitry...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Dmitry...
By Runiteshark on 9/29/2008 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 1
No offense dude, no offense.

Since he said that, all of a sudden everything is ok. Especially since he is a thick headed idiot.


RE: Dmitry...
By CSQuake on 9/29/2008 10:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Isaac “Absent” Amirian" is a white guy?


RE: Dmitry...
RE: Dmitry...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/29/2008 10:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. He's been on Conan O'brien and a lot of other TV appearances. He's actually a very funny and well spoken individual.


RE: Dmitry...
By DASQ on 9/29/2008 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
No, but 'Christian Lander' is. You didn't even click the links, did you?


RE: Dmitry...
By CSQuake on 9/29/2008 10:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
No ;)


RE: Dmitry...
By CSQuake on 9/29/2008 10:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
Ah ... I just realised the guy who writes that crap is jewish ... no wonder he's managed to write a whole article on hitler!


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 10:08:26 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know about the Hitler reference, doesn't fit for me.

Anyway I see this as yet another notch in the string of Neocon failures. Why in gods name did we need missles in poland? I'm sorry but that was an obiovously provacitive move which yeilds little in the way of tangible defence benifits. Russia just isn't going to launch missles at us, and frankly I doubt those missles will do anything to safeguard against a n. korea launch (which frankly their missles are more pointed southwards anyway).

The Bush presidencey can be described as a short period of success in his first term followed by one gigantic disaster after another. It really makes me scratch my head as to how in gods name anyone could possibly be supporting one more neocon term after the last 8 years, seriously, do we want a great depression and WWIII all rolled up into our next president?


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 10:36:13 AM , Rating: 1
I am not even from America and McCain / Palin terrifies me, I mean really terrifies me. I have little doubt WW3 will happen in my lifetime if those two crazy christian whack jobs come into power.

Seriously the crazy Christians scare me just as much or more than Muslim extremists.

War with Russia? It wont be just Russia the USA is pissing off so many nations lately I don't think Russia would have to look far for allies.

Honestly, it's time to come back to reality, fix your damn economic disaster, start behaving like it's the 21st century again and quit pounding the war drums.


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 10:49:54 AM , Rating: 4
Technically Palin is the Evangalist and that is actually the entire purpose of her being on that ticket (along with her being a woman to help counter Obama's african americanness). But after the first presidential debate McCain has really demonstrated what he's about. Not sure how many people really closely watched him but McCain clearly demonstrates that he has aboslutly no respect for Obama or any of his ideas. In fact it feels like he doesn't even consider him an equal challeneger for the presidency.

To me he came off as a polarized bitter old man set in his views unwilling to compramise or listen to the opinions of others. I guess I can't say that's accurate as I don't know the man, but that's the impression I got as I watched the looks of disgust on his face as he debated Obama.

IMHO, some one capable of so badly misjudging his opponent in a presidential race has no business running the country.


RE: Dmitry...
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have no respect for any of Obama's ideas either. Because all of them will ruin this country once piece at a time.

And Palin is on the ticket because she is a conservative. Not because of her religion. No conservatives awaiting his VP choice were like "Man I hope he picks someone who's religious!". Nor do many of us care that she's a woman. I would've been just as happy with him picking someone like Jim DeMint from South Carolina. Or Ron Paul. Just someone who believes in limited government, wants to fight against wasteful spending, and doesn't think the government should own and run everything as Obama does.


RE: Dmitry...
By maven81 on 9/29/2008 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just admit that you don't know anything about his ideas and leave it at that.

What has mr conservative done in his 26 years in the senate? Did he make government smaller? Did he speak out against the recent bailout where Bush essentially IS making the government own everything?


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 1:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
Do you care that she is as dumb as a post and completely ignorant, incapable of even forming a sentence?

Someone who is dumb as mud and believes in "missions from god" is not only a poor choice but a frightening choice in a leadership role.

As far as lesser of evils go, I would vote for Obama any day.


RE: Dmitry...
By Grast on 9/29/2008 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Savage,

That is your right to vote as you please. However, when your taxes go up, cost of living is increased, your job outsourced to another country, and you are standing in line for healthcare, I will remind you of your poor choice of a leader.

In my opinion if Obama gets elected, it will be 4 years of failed policies followed by another moderate with crappy ideas.

Later..


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 1:29:21 PM , Rating: 1
If McCain gets elected there's absolutly no doubt of this, so I'll take my chances with Obama, thanks.


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 1:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Canada, so I have all the healthcare I need.

Here in Alberta you can basically walk down the street naked with a sign around your neck that says hire me and employers will tackle you and drag you off to work. You can be a dumb as a post redneck with no skills past beer drinking and make 150k a year like falling off a log in Alberta (case in point the brother of the tech sitting behind me.)

I'm not to worried about any of that, But I am worried about having to live with radioactive fallout from the smoking rubble of America when that crazy religious duo plunges the country into a war that everyone loses.


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
No, she's on the ticket for her religion and her gender, also because she's not very well known there for McCain can still try playing the "I'm against the establishment" game. Funny thing is he's using the bush forumla to try and get elected... Bush solidified a large portion of the evangelical and christican conservitive vote simply by being one and touting the "jeasus christ is my personal lord and saviour" line. McCain to my knowlege isn't evangellical so he personally doesn't get as much stock in this department as Bush did, additionally he has the problem of having rubbed these very voters the wrong way preivously.

So in order to smoot that over he very publically brought on an evangellical christian. I don't know what about this political move isn't obvious to you, but you really are about the only one missing it.


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
?? Well I'm not exactly a conservitive christian, but I am religious so I guess I don't feel comfertable sayign only athiests can run for public office.

As far as televangalizm, I think that many different (mainly protistant) faiths engage in this sort of practice. Per wikipedia though John McCain is a southern baptist which I guess is somewhat of an asset, but Bush proved decisavly that the Evangelicals are where it's at. The southern baptists to my knowlege seem to be very ok with them so that's covered, but it feels like you get a whole new demention of conservitive christian by being Evangelical these days.

Disclouser:
I'm Roman Catholic my self, I do consider religion to be important in my life. That said a candidates christianity doesn't play a major role in my voting preferences though it does affect my views on some hot button issues like my prolifeness.


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 2:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about being an atheist.

Like Bill Maher I recognize that there could indeed be some creative intelligence ie "god" if you will behind reality. Religion on the other hand.

The concept of all human religions is complete hogwash though. In the face of all we know today to believe in any religion on the face of the earth is absurd. All of them are convinced they are the one true religion and that not following it leads to eternal damnation. It's just complete nonsense.

It is seriously if we are flying around in jets, and planning manned trips to mars yet still fighting the same battle fought in the crusades. Christians versus Muslims smackdown 2008 oh yeah! The sooner the world grows up and abolishes religion the better off it will be.


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 2:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is a different debate all together, but what you're talking about falls in line either with agnostic or athiest points of veiw (very similar). I personally along with many others to have faith in god so, I guess with out getting into the issue too deeply either you have faith or you don't. For the purposes of our discussion here one point of view isn't any better or more correct than any other.


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 2:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't fall in with any crowd or identify with any group. I don't need a denomination to feel validated. I believe what I do based on a rational perspective of what modern science has taught us.

If you believe that dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago and a 600 year old man built a boat that housed 2 of every creature on earth then repopulated the planet from his own family and a bunch of animals without degenerating into ridiculous inbreeding and total extinction within a few years, well, you are not fit to be in control of the largest nuclear superpower on earth.


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 3:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
....Ok, is there any reason you have a problem with the name "athiest" or "agnostic"? I mean really, it's the "belief system" (if you will) that you generally seem to subscribe to. It's not a dirty word, it's what you beleive. Sort of like I'm a christian, and I beleive in christiantiy specifically the Roman Catholic interpetation of.

As far as creationism v. evolution, this is a far reaching subject outside the scope of this conversation. I do however think it is important for you to understand that whether or not you're religious doesn't automatically dump you into creationism or pure evolutionary points of view. A fair number (my self included) of christians do not subscribe to a literal interpetation of creationism.


RE: Dmitry...
By SavagePotato on 9/29/2008 3:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's simple, I don't believe in being categorized into a best fit IE a belief system and given a label. It implies subscribing to a belief based on the fact others believe it, which is not the case.

I don't classify myself with denominations or even political parties in this way because it is to simple to just say, I am with them, I believe what they believe. No I can think for myself and draw my own conclusions. That may mean having certain beliefs in common with any given group, and disagreement with others. However I won't be classified as a card carrying member and put in the group of oh, you're an atheist, or oh, you're a conservative.


RE: Dmitry...
By cokbun on 10/1/2008 12:01:25 AM , Rating: 1
Religions are okay. It's when people starts being fanatic a.k.a. Stupid, that's when shits start happening. Stampeding people in a temple, blow yourself (and innocent people) and go to heaven. Talking gibberish.. ( Well at least it doesnt kill anybody,just makes you looks stupid ). Religion in my country literally means ' don't fuck up ' so i intend just that. Nothing more


RE: Dmitry...
By Locutus465 on 9/29/2008 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I notice you were unable to defend my appraisal of McCain lol... So is that serously what you want in the white house? A bitter old man that doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks?


RE: Dmitry...
By Guttersnipe on 9/29/2008 4:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
please, russia only understands strength. weakness with pretty speeches from the likes of obama would just give them a good laugh.

i seriously don't want a man with a dubious past as obama in the white house. he spent his time before he thought anyone was watching with a reverend that gave rewards and unrestrained praise to antisemitic racists like lewis farrahkhan. a decade spent with that man, calling him his personal spiritual adviser, exposing his family to him. he is nothing like the man democrats wish he was. if he were he would have walked away at the very least, or if he were the man he is believed to be actually stand up to that bigot. but he did nothing, he stood by like a coward, or one complicit with the man. thats the kind of shady character obama is. what a man does when he thinks no one is watching is revealing, and all his talent at crafting a shiny image for election season is really unconvincing to anyone who isn't easily manipulated.


RE: Dmitry...
By Ringold on 9/30/2008 3:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not even from America and McCain / Palin terrifies me, I mean really terrifies me.


Wow, grow a pair, and then realize that American foreign policy between any two President's really isn't going to undergo any titanic shift in actual policy. Perhaps tone, but not policy. Obama won't leave Iraq or Afghanistan probably one day sooner than McCain. He'd probably shoot at the same people McCain would've; care to count all the different countries Clinton ended up shooting at along the way? The difference between the two will be domestic economic policy, which is none of your concern (AIG was taken down partly by poor investments in Europe, and Europe has banks more dangerously leveraged than the US did, so don't try to blame the ENTIRE global financial crisis on us). I'd also be careful pointing the finger at us; our crisis has come on all at once, but where is the outrage at Europe for artificially throttling it's own economy slowly over many decades with it's socialist policies? How much better off would the world be in terms of prosperity of mankind if the Eurozone were as wealthy as America? I'm no "christian whack job," but to paraphrase, let he who is without economic sin cast the first stone.

In other words, the bulk of the difference will be in style; maybe I'm optimistic, but I think some of Obama's earlier rhetoric was more to appease the powerful communist left-wing of his party during the primaries. McCain will serve the US interest with a grunt, while Obama will do a lot of the same with a smile. Obama will serve the US interest and the US interest alone; but because he's charismatic, like Clinton, he'll nail you and you'll say "thank you, come again!"

Plus, war with Russia? No one is seriously talking about that. Russia will huff and puff but not dare attack NATO, and as long as they don't attack NATO, we'll just stare at each other with mean faces. You know, like the last half century.

If that scares you, then you need some help for anxiety or something. I'm not surprised though. If you think McCain is a "christian whack job" then you just don't know what you're talking about. McCain won the primary not because he was Christian, but because all the Christians were splitting their votes among the real christian "whack jobs," leaving McCain as the goofy liberal Republican who just happened to be the last man standing. The MSM where ever you are has already brainwashed you in to forgetting he was deeply unpopular among the Republican base -- until Palin was added to quiet that element of the party down and get them on board.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki