INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: ZEGH8578 on June 09, 2014, 06:53:59 AM
-
Soon you'll have to come over here again :0
NATO and all that :0
Allies :0
Sure we hate your fucking guts, but hey! Europa + America is like = Our guns suddenly multiplied with four.
That's a good deal, regardless of your goddamn, hopeless retardedness, borderline-analphabetism, fascist tendencies, racism, colonialism and corrupt world exploitation!
It is seeming more and more likely Russia will invade Finland at least within our all timeline. Finland is not a NATO nation, but is increasingly tempted to join, something that a Russian envoy described as pretty much a disastrous choice for Finland and Europe as well.
Finland is to be incorporated peacefully into Russia, according to Russian unofficial global-politic theories.
Therefore, if Finland is allied with a major military alliance, according to the Russian envoy - this woudl equal "Another full-out war in Europe", was what he said.
Finland connecting with Europe - equals a war across Europe.
Nice, Russia. That's... nice!
At the end of that, he described "russophobia", and basically did the whole "Stop looking at me like that or I'll punch you" to someone not even looking. He added that rampant "russophobia" in Finland would provoke this situation untill there is no turning back, and that the 2nd worst "russophobe" country after Finland, was Sweden.
This is dick-swinging of course, but very specific. This type of dick-swinging can be an attempt at "softening the shock" - remember, this isn't meant so much for US, its not a warning to EUROPE! It is a message to RUSSIA!
It is a Russian envoy - telling the Russian people: "SO! I went to Finland, and told them to stop murdering Russian babies! They told me they didn't know what I was talking about! I TRIED!"
Same shit as the Americans were doing about Arabs and terrorists and such. Finns apparently hate Russians "for deyr freedom", and as such, Russia "will be forced" to invade.
-
Also, this isn't about "Lol Russia vs Finland, deyre gonna lose!"
Times have changed.
In 1939 Russia attacked with Central Asian cossacks, in a war-hardened Finland (Civil war prior). Finnish veterans, relishing in their own winter, had a "field day" with Russian conscripts.
This is different. 1, they're not gonna repeat themselves. 2. Finnish boys play playstation all day. 3. Russia is ripe with blood-thirsty war-veterans, from conflicts all over Caucasus.
-
America must get involved! We must protect the Moomins! :moomin::moomin: :moomin:
-
That is of course the lil paradox here
If Finland stands alone, their prospects are a peaceful reincorporation into Russia
If Finland decides to accept American help, Russia seems prepared to take on NATO. That, in particular may not seem all too likely. We've spent the past 20 years laughing at Russian military technology.
But
Feet back on the ground, back to reality, the world's 2nd or 3rd biggest military is no laughing matter, and their technology IS NOT stone-age stuff. It is in fact modern, contemporary technology. The idea that their shit is vastly outdated IS FALSE :D It is propaganda!
-
That is kind of scary.
I think the USA should keep their noses out of it. It is not their business.
But if I were in Finland I would be wanting to join the EU.
-
America, fuck yeah! :arrr: Wait, is there oil in Finland? :tard:
I think that you underestimated how many guns America has. :tooledup:
-
Me? What does the number of guns in the USA have to do with politics on the other side of the world? Handguns cannot shoot that far. :apondering:
-
Me? What does the number of guns in the USA have to do with politics on the other side of the world? Handguns cannot shoot that far. :apondering:
ZEGH had mentioned it.
-
As a pragmatic man, I have no choice but to hope Finland will stay unaligned, and that they'll take the brunt of that on their own shoulders
I do wonder tho, if my eager aspie friend, military-enthusiast, will travel to Finland, to help them fight!
"FEAR NOT FINNS! I HAVE ARRIVED! :O"
-
As a pragmatic man, I have no choice but to hope Finland will stay unaligned, and that they'll take the brunt of that on their own shoulders
I do wonder tho, if my eager aspie friend, military-enthusiast, will travel to Finland, to help them fight!
"FEAR NOT FINNS! I HAVE ARRIVED! :O"
You say that as if Russia is a match for NATO by itself. :P
-
As a pragmatic man, I have no choice but to hope Finland will stay unaligned, and that they'll take the brunt of that on their own shoulders
I do wonder tho, if my eager aspie friend, military-enthusiast, will travel to Finland, to help them fight!
"FEAR NOT FINNS! I HAVE ARRIVED! :O"
You say that as if Russia is a match for NATO by itself. :P
It's not so much about "who will completely destroy the other", none of the NATO countries have any interest in getting themselves "bogged down in Russia", and Russia knows that NATO countries have much more to lose than Russia itself.
They have studied psychology, mass-psychology, and it is very obvious that todays westerners are very unwilling to fight for anything, and the military capacity of the West may not be as great as we believe.
For example, in the 1930s, Norwegian liberals travelled to Spain to fight and die for OTHER people! For "likeminded people", when the war in Finland begun in 39, Norwegians once again travelled to fight and die, this time for "brother-folk".
This kind of strong determination no longer exists, at least not in Norway, we have too much to lose, people be like "Who's gonna watch over my X-Box while I'm gone!? D:"
Russia knows this
It's not that they think it's gonna be easy, they just realize it's probably gonna be just easy enough to risk it.
Again, this isn't about all or nothing, so I'm not saying Russia would "pwn" NATO or anything, far from it, but this is not the first time the ruskis have seem themselves as technically ready to take on Europe (with the aim of focusing their force only on certain regions, be it Finland, the Baltics, etc)
-
That is kind of scary.
I think the USA should keep their noses out of it. It is not their business.
But if I were in Finland I would be wanting to join the EU.
Finland did join the EU, almost 20 years ago now.
I do think Finland should join NATO, too. Its proximity to Russia makes it a target, and while I don't share Zegh's views of the Finnish boys of today, the nation is just too small.
Also, I think that both Sweden and Finland should possess nuclear weapons. They should make it clear to anyone even thinking about invading that yes, the respective armies probably won't be able to put up a fight for long, but the invader should be prepared to lose its capital at the first sign of attack.
-
BTW, Zegh, while you may want to take what you call a pragmatic view and accept a "peaceful incorporation of Finland into Russia", I doubt the rest of the world would, and that includes Finland. There would be nothing peaceful about it. The same, I suspect, is true for the Baltics. Any such action would trigger WW3.
-
That is kind of scary.
I think the USA should keep their noses out of it. It is not their business.
But if I were in Finland I would be wanting to join the EU.
Finland did join the EU, almost 20 years ago now.
I do think Finland should join NATO, too. Its proximity to Russia makes it a target, and while I don't share Zegh's views of the Finnish boys of today, the nation is just too small.
Also, I think that both Sweden and Finland should possess nuclear weapons. They should make it clear to anyone even thinking about invading that yes, the respective armies probably won't be able to put up a fight for long, but the invader should be prepared to lose its capital at the first sign of attack.
Well a bit surprised hearing you say that, what is the feelings of your fellow countrymen on that point? Sweden could have easily had nukes if they hadn't shut their weapons program down in 72.
-
BTW, Zegh, while you may want to take what you call a pragmatic view and accept a "peaceful incorporation of Finland into Russia", I doubt the rest of the world would, and that includes Finland. There would be nothing peaceful about it. The same, I suspect, is true for the Baltics. Any such action would trigger WW3.
I meant that as a very cold and blunt way of saying "Rather Finland than all of Scandinavia/Europe", in no way was I saying that I would be fine with Russia incorporating Finland, and by "peaceful" I refered to the Russian "version of it", the same way Crimea was peaceful (as in no traditional warfare flaring up, due to intense intimidation).
It's like saying, I'd rather my neighbors be mugged, tied up, and killed by insane robbers - than me. But it doesn't mean I'll accept, be happy, or wish for it happening to my neighbors, I'm not a psychopath :D
I actually agree with you about nukes. When countries are under pressure, any means should be taken to alleviate the pressure, without causing more damage.
-
BTW, Zegh, while you may want to take what you call a pragmatic view and accept a "peaceful incorporation of Finland into Russia", I doubt the rest of the world would, and that includes Finland. There would be nothing peaceful about it. The same, I suspect, is true for the Baltics. Any such action would trigger WW3.
I meant that as a very cold and blunt way of saying "Rather Finland than all of Scandinavia/Europe", in no way was I saying that I would be fine with Russia incorporating Finland, and by "peaceful" I refered to the Russian "version of it", the same way Crimea was peaceful (as in no traditional warfare flaring up, due to intense intimidation).
It's like saying, I'd rather my neighbors be mugged, tied up, and killed by insane robbers - than me. But it doesn't mean I'll accept, be happy, or wish for it happening to my neighbors, I'm not a psychopath :D
I actually agree with you about nukes. When countries are under pressure, any means should be taken to alleviate the pressure, without causing more damage.
I recall hearing about some German who tried a similar strategy in Europe in the 1930's. It didn't end well for Europe. Why would this "peaceful incorporation" end better than that one?
-
BTW, Zegh, while you may want to take what you call a pragmatic view and accept a "peaceful incorporation of Finland into Russia", I doubt the rest of the world would, and that includes Finland. There would be nothing peaceful about it. The same, I suspect, is true for the Baltics. Any such action would trigger WW3.
I meant that as a very cold and blunt way of saying "Rather Finland than all of Scandinavia/Europe", in no way was I saying that I would be fine with Russia incorporating Finland, and by "peaceful" I refered to the Russian "version of it", the same way Crimea was peaceful (as in no traditional warfare flaring up, due to intense intimidation).
It's like saying, I'd rather my neighbors be mugged, tied up, and killed by insane robbers - than me. But it doesn't mean I'll accept, be happy, or wish for it happening to my neighbors, I'm not a psychopath :D
I actually agree with you about nukes. When countries are under pressure, any means should be taken to alleviate the pressure, without causing more damage.
I recall hearing about some German who tried a similar strategy in Europe in the 1930's. It didn't end well for Europe. Why wouldn't this "peaceful incorporation" end up like that one did?
Wow
I am The Bad Guy here
You guys better never watch "saving private ryan" or youll come out thinking Spielberg is a nazi "You saw it yourself! There were nazis in the movie!"
I SAID "PEACEFUL INCORPORATION" IMITATING THE WAY RUSSIANS REFER TO IT, AS IN NOT DECLARING WAR AND NOT BOMBING THE COUNTRY INTO SUBMISSION. YOU KNOW
LIKE CRIMEA
OR IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT ww2 AS IF I DONT KNOW ABOUT IT
LIKE AUSTRIA, SUDETENLAND, MEMEL AND EVEN SAARLAND, ALL OF THEM INCORPORATED PEACEFULLY
YOU KNOW, IF YOU USE THE WORDS OF OTHERS, TO ILLUSTRATE THEM, IF YOU SAY "WHITE FOLKS BACK IN THE DAY TALKED ABOUT NIGGERS" IT DOESNT MAKE YOU THE RACIST.
DO YOU NEED A MORE THOROUGH EXPLANATION, JUST LET ME KNOW!
-
I have a suspicion this will be misunderstood, so I'll elaborate further:
Saarland, Memel, Austria and Sudetenland WERE NOT invaded in a hostile, violent manner. There were threats about it. Like with Crimea. Like with Finland. But they were incorporated into Germany _PRIOR_ to the big war breaking out. If you're gonna be a smartass, know your goddamn mother-raping facts. thanks.
-
I have a suspicion there will be more smartassness, knowing aspies, and knowing Semicolon, so I will elaborate further:
Stop comparing everything to WW2, history does not "repeat itself", its just that wars are similar, and people prefer an easy narrative, so they say "oh gee, history repeated itself! look! the spaniards discovered the americas all over again, hitler is reborn, and it went from 2013 to 1922 and shit, it's like magic!"
So, again
I would prefer Finlands peaceful incorporation in to Russia
TO
WAR in Finland
and
WAR in Norway
-
BTW, Zegh, while you may want to take what you call a pragmatic view and accept a "peaceful incorporation of Finland into Russia", I doubt the rest of the world would, and that includes Finland. There would be nothing peaceful about it. The same, I suspect, is true for the Baltics. Any such action would trigger WW3.
I meant that as a very cold and blunt way of saying "Rather Finland than all of Scandinavia/Europe", in no way was I saying that I would be fine with Russia incorporating Finland, and by "peaceful" I refered to the Russian "version of it", the same way Crimea was peaceful (as in no traditional warfare flaring up, due to intense intimidation).
It's like saying, I'd rather my neighbors be mugged, tied up, and killed by insane robbers - than me. But it doesn't mean I'll accept, be happy, or wish for it happening to my neighbors, I'm not a psychopath :D
I actually agree with you about nukes. When countries are under pressure, any means should be taken to alleviate the pressure, without causing more damage.
I recall hearing about some German who tried a similar strategy in Europe in the 1930's. It didn't end well for Europe. Why wouldn't this "peaceful incorporation" end up like that one did?
Wow
I am The Bad Guy here
You guys better never watch "saving private ryan" or youll come out thinking Spielberg is a nazi "You saw it yourself! There were nazis in the movie!"
I SAID "PEACEFUL INCORPORATION" IMITATING THE WAY RUSSIANS REFER TO IT, AS IN NOT DECLARING WAR AND NOT BOMBING THE COUNTRY INTO SUBMISSION. YOU KNOW
LIKE CRIMEA
OR IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT ww2 AS IF I DONT KNOW ABOUT IT
LIKE AUSTRIA, SUDETENLAND, MEMEL AND EVEN SAARLAND, ALL OF THEM INCORPORATED PEACEFULLY
YOU KNOW, IF YOU USE THE WORDS OF OTHERS, TO ILLUSTRATE THEM, IF YOU SAY "WHITE FOLKS BACK IN THE DAY TALKED ABOUT NIGGERS" IT DOESNT MAKE YOU THE RACIST.
DO YOU NEED A MORE THOROUGH EXPLANATION, JUST LET ME KNOW!
You're the one who would want Finland to surrender without a fight.
I have a suspicion this will be misunderstood, so I'll elaborate further:
Saarland, Memel, Austria and Sudetenland WERE NOT invaded in a hostile, violent manner. There were threats about it. Like with Crimea. Like with Finland. But they were incorporated into Germany _PRIOR_ to the big war breaking out. If you're gonna be a smartass, know your goddamn mother-raping facts. thanks.
Exactly. And when no one stood up to Germany, they ended up taking more and more until the response to the annexation of Poland was outright war across Europe.
I have a suspicion there will be more smartassness, knowing aspies, and knowing Semicolon, so I will elaborate further:
Stop comparing everything to WW2, history does not "repeat itself", its just that wars are similar, and people prefer an easy narrative, so they say "oh gee, history repeated itself! look! the spaniards discovered the americas all over again, hitler is reborn, and it went from 2013 to 1922 and shit, it's like magic!"
So, again
I would prefer Finlands peaceful incorporation in to Russia
TO
WAR in Finland
and
WAR in Norway
Given the narrative that you've drawn, it does look like history repeating itself. But you still haven't answered the question. Where would Russia stop? After taking over Crimea and Finland without a fight, would Russia decide to play nice? Or would it continue its expansion, as no one would be stopping it?
-
1. Fuck you, I don't "want" anything. I PREFER _another_ country to go down, _as peacefully as possible_ than ME DYING. Is that tremendously difficult to comprehend? "Yes >:O" Then you are a lost cause. Go join the US-Army, brave-man.
2. Yes, "History Repeats Itself!" then tell me this, moron: Why wasn't WW2 EXACTLY like the Roman Conquests? "Hehehe, silly you! That particular argument is SILLY! In THAT particular case, history doesn't repeat itself, lololol!"
3. History doesn't repeat itself, dickwad. SOME EVENTS ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER EVENTS. But simpletons like you prefer the easy version, I get it.
4. Where would Russia stop? Hold on a moment, let me consult my Oracle. Brb.
-
1. Fuck you, I don't "want" anything. I PREFER _another_ country to go down, _as peacefully as possible_ than ME DYING. Is that tremendously difficult to comprehend? "Yes >:O" Then you are a lost cause. Go join the US-Army, brave-man.
2. Yes, "History Repeats Itself!" then tell me this, moron: Why wasn't WW2 EXACTLY like the Roman Conquests? "Hehehe, silly you! That particular argument is SILLY! In THAT particular case, history doesn't repeat itself, lololol!"
3. History doesn't repeat itself, dickwad. SOME EVENTS ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER EVENTS. But simpletons like you prefer the easy version, I get it.
4. Where would Russia stop? Hold on a moment, let me consult my Oracle. Brb.
Why would Russia stop taking over other countries, if no one opposes them?
-
The question is, when did I say Russia would stop?
Why are you imagining that I said Russia would stop?
Why would I be that dumb, to imagine Russia would stop?
On what basis do you reckon I am that dumb?
Stop making this more polemical than it is, just to boost yourself. Now, if you wanna ask me something I might have an answer for, then go ahead. I love normal debate. This thinly-veiled dick-waving will only make me more and more uncooperative.
-
Sigh, tea-spoon time:
I _HOPE_ Russia won't do a goddamn thing.
If if DOES, I HOPE it stops at a peaceful action against a country, that hurts nobody.
I HOPE they stop there.
As for what I "know" or think I "know", I've no fucking clue. But I'm not gonna sit here and theorize about the destriction of Scandinavia, cus, you know, I live here. It's not something I'm gonna be guessing about for fun "lol, maybe my whole family is dead by 15 years lol, WW2 achieved a whole lot in just 4!"
So, there. Does that answer your questions? Please say yes!
-
The question is, when did I say Russia would stop?
Why are you imagining that I said Russia would stop?
Why would I be that dumb, to imagine Russia would stop?
On what basis do you reckon I am that dumb?
Stop making this more polemical than it is, just to boost yourself. Now, if you wanna ask me something I might have an answer for, then go ahead. I love normal debate. This thinly-veiled dick-waving will only make me more and more uncooperative.
If Russia wouldn't stop, then you'll eventually find them on your doorstep. If you insist on being pragmatic, then with Finland unconquered, you'll have a barrier between Norway and Russia. A Russia with Finland is more threatening to Norway than a Russia without Finland.
Sigh, tea-spoon time:
I _HOPE_ Russia won't do a goddamn thing.
If if DOES, I HOPE it stops at a peaceful action against a country, that hurts nobody.
I HOPE they stop there.
As for what I "know" or think I "know", I've no fucking clue. But I'm not gonna sit here and theorize about the destriction of Scandinavia, cus, you know, I live here. It's not something I'm gonna be guessing about for fun "lol, maybe my whole family is dead by 15 years lol, WW2 achieved a whole lot in just 4!"
So, there. Does that answer your questions? Please say yes!
I hope that, were this to come up, NATO and the EU would do more about it than they've done about Crimea. As far as questions go, It's your scenario.
-
I know that.
But I wasn't talking about it.
I found the prospect kind of obvious and uncomfortable to spell out.
That is why
I
hope
that if Russia DOES decide on Finland, they'll stop there. And hurt as few finns as possible.
Why do I have to explain that I want as few people as possible hurt? Is this really something I need to explain?
Russian officials are also on record saying "Norway has seen too much peace lately", so yes, I know.
edit: goddamn the quote-pyramid got messed up in this one -.-
---
NATO and EU have no official responsability in Ukraine, so, regardless of peoples emotions, there was nothing they could do, except illegal actions.
EU _does_ have a self-defence force, that should theoretically cover Finland as well, but I cannot imagine it being much more than symbolic, leaving NATO as the only real defensive force to be reckoned with. Finland is not a member, and that is where it gets icky, since Russia is explicitly warning Finland against it, and we're back to where the debate started.
I don't like to guess about what might or might not happen in global hostility. For fun, sometimes, but for serious? No. "War is like a door opening into a blackened room" -Hitler, you never know, and he sure learned that the hard way.
Russia could very well end up controlling Western Eurasia, and a new dawn would enter. Maybe it wouldn't even be so bad. I mean, America has homeless people, whores, beggars, all kinds of depressing shit. Maybe Russia would be beaten into smithereens, dissolving into tons of dirt-poor little shit republics. Who knows? Maybe all out nuclear holocaust, maybe none of those, maybe something new that we haven't seen before. I don't want to speculate about it.
-
A union of the two countries would create the most laid-back citizens ever.
"Why are you so relaxed?"
"I'm Finnish-Russian."
-
I know that.
But I wasn't talking about it.
I found the prospect kind of obvious and uncomfortable to spell out.
That is why
I
hope
that if Russia DOES decide on Finland, they'll stop there. And hurt as few finns as possible.
Why do I have to explain that I want as few people as possible hurt? Is this really something I need to explain?
Russian officials are also on record saying "Norway has seen too much peace lately", so yes, I know.
edit: goddamn the quote-pyramid got messed up in this one -.-
---
NATO and EU have no official responsability in Ukraine, so, regardless of peoples emotions, there was nothing they could do, except illegal actions.
EU _does_ have a self-defence force, that should theoretically cover Finland as well, but I cannot imagine it being much more than symbolic, leaving NATO as the only real defensive force to be reckoned with. Finland is not a member, and that is where it gets icky, since Russia is explicitly warning Finland against it, and we're back to where the debate started.
I don't like to guess about what might or might not happen in global hostility. For fun, sometimes, but for serious? No. "War is like a door opening into a blackened room" -Hitler, you never know, and he sure learned that the hard way.
Russia could very well end up controlling Western Eurasia, and a new dawn would enter. Maybe it wouldn't even be so bad. I mean, America has homeless people, whores, beggars, all kinds of depressing shit. Maybe Russia would be beaten into smithereens, dissolving into tons of dirt-poor little shit republics. Who knows? Maybe all out nuclear holocaust, maybe none of those, maybe something new that we haven't seen before. I don't want to speculate about it.
To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. :viking: I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.
As far as war goes, it's one thing for Russia to annex part of a former Soviet republic. It's another to openly attack a member of the EU.
-
I have a suspicion there will be more smartassness...
Everyone hates the pigs until they need them.
-
I have a suspicion there will be more smartassness...
Everyone hates the pigs until they need them.
:laugh:
-
To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. :viking: I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.
Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...
-
To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. :viking: I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.
Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...
I think that would depend on your wealth and class (http://womennewsnetwork.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/023-BRAZIL-SlumNextoLuxury-SaoPauloImageDavidFenng.jpg)
-
To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. :viking: I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.
Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...
Would I rather be dead than live in chains? Yes. It's not (just) propaganda; it's the basis of American freedom.
-
Russia has a population of 120 million. 99,9999999% of them do not have physical shackles of them.
Simply being a citizen of not-usa is not reason to commit suicide :D
I'm not saying it's all dandy, but people DO live there, and survive, and exist. Every country was once another, got conquered, and people still live in it.
-
Russia has a population of 120 million. 99,9999999% of them do not have physical shackles of them.
Simply being a citizen of not-usa is not reason to commit suicide :D
I'm not saying it's all dandy, but people DO live there, and survive, and exist. Every country was once another, got conquered, and people still live in it.
:laugh:
You have a point, although I suspect it would ring hollow to Russian gays and dissidents. Have you ever read Catch-22?
At the same time, recognize that it's not a matter of committing suicide, but of risking your life by opposing oppressors. If you used China for that argument, would you still think it's better to value your life over your freedom? If it was Taliban-run Afghanistan? Poland under Hitler? Is there a point when you would pick up a gun and fight whoever is oppressing you? Existing is not enough.
-
That is kind of scary.
I think the USA should keep their noses out of it. It is not their business.
But if I were in Finland I would be wanting to join the EU.
Finland did join the EU, almost 20 years ago now.
I do think Finland should join NATO, too. Its proximity to Russia makes it a target, and while I don't share Zegh's views of the Finnish boys of today, the nation is just too small.
Also, I think that both Sweden and Finland should possess nuclear weapons. They should make it clear to anyone even thinking about invading that yes, the respective armies probably won't be able to put up a fight for long, but the invader should be prepared to lose its capital at the first sign of attack.
Well a bit surprised hearing you say that, what is the feelings of your fellow countrymen on that point? Sweden could have easily had nukes if they hadn't shut their weapons program down in 72.
Most are dead against the idea in both countries. I don't particularly fancy the idea either, but pragmatically speaking, it's the only deterrent I can think of, beyond joining NATO.
-
Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms, and only when everyone joins NATO and openly accounts for their uranium will the security council be able to lay down nuclear arms. Probably won't happen, but still a nice objective.
-
I don't see why it's nice, tbh.
-
A world without nuclear arms doesn't seem nice?
-
Everyone joining NATO doesn't seem all that nice. Or that only superpowers are allowed nukes.
-
The security council is what it is, and until the loose cannons out there get with the program then it will always be what it is. What's not nice about everyone joining NATO?
-
The security council is wholly without teeth, a charade of sorts. Getting with the program is basically getting with what the US wants, or Russia, or China.
NATO is not without teeth, but until literally *everyone* joins it, it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
-
Was feeling like you and I had already had this discussion. Turns out it was with Sir Les. :laugh:
Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?
It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty)
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
Saddam Hussein vs George Bush? Hard choice. What would Saddam Hussein do with advanced weapons of mass destruction? What is Kim Jung Soon (sp?) doing? Would they have done the same? Was Hussein as bad as Kim or was Bush as bad as either? We won't find out naturally what will happen. I do fear those 5000 nukes more though.
The countries of the Security Council have made agreement to refrain from the use of nuclear warfare except in the event of retaliation of nuclear attack. These countries aren't very likely to breach this agreement and lose world trust. Uranium enrichment programs kept secret from the UN break treaty agreements and don't suggest pure intentions.
Don't think this particular subject is able to be related in the same way. This is a world treaty; as long as there remains the threat of countries who refuse to comply, the super powers will never be expected to dismantle. The five nuclear states are at this point, basically entrusted to protect the countries who comply to the treaty from the ones who don't. The true purpose of the treaty is supposed to be to eliminate them completely. This may likely never happen.
There's some fabulous conspiracy theories out there concerning the existence of the UN, but it's purpose and ultimate goal is supposed to be world peace. It's a very interesting and detailed article, Sir, which touches on the logic of the questions you ask. I don't really claim to know what's fair or okay about nuclear warfare.
Would have to say my viewpoint hasn't changed about the importance of being evil. There's nothing fair or okay about nuclear warfare.
-
I'm not for nukes. I'm for deterrents. If traffic lights on red near the borders are enough to stop the Russians, I'm happy to go with that instead.
-
it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.
-
I'm not for nukes. I'm for deterrents. If traffic lights on red near the borders are enough to stop the Russians, I'm happy to go with that instead.
It's not good enough. The pigs will be needed. :laugh:
-
it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.
The security council is wholly without teeth, a charade of sorts. Getting with the program is basically getting with what the US wants, or Russia, or China.
No need to forget about the other powerful Security Council nuclear pigs. The UN makes all major decisions of war for it's membership, and it's a little annoying when Europeans neglect to acknowledge the UK's influence as a world super power.
-
it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.
The security council is wholly without teeth, a charade of sorts. Getting with the program is basically getting with what the US wants, or Russia, or China.
No need to forget about the other powerful Security Council nuclear pigs. The UN makes all major decisions of war for it's membership, and it's a little annoying when Europeans neglect to acknowledge the UK's influence as a world super power.
France has a permanent seat, too.
-
France has a permanent seat, too.
True, but it will be a long time before France has to play the role of the bad guy; maybe they'll get that chance when it's the UK's turn to play the villan. That would make more sense. Unlike zeg, don't think this will happen in my life time, maybe my children's.
-
France has a permanent seat, too.
True, but it will be a long time before France has to play the role of the bad guy; maybe they'll get that chance when it's the UK's turn to play the villan. That would make more sense. Unlike zeg, don't think this will happen in my life time, maybe my children's.
France is allready flirting with the "rogue" role. They are in fact leading in the.. more legitimate neo-fascist movement in Europa, as in, they're among the most eager ones to legally vote racists and fascists into their gvt. Just recently some French politician talked about throwing a political opponent "into the ovens" (the opponent was Jewish :D)
This may seem trivial, but imagine if this was only 10 years ago, before we had gotten quickly used to bigotry like this exploding up everywhere
-
Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms
There IS some kind of way to look at this that is neither tautological nor simple an issue of those in power finding an excuse to maintain their power, right?
-
Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms
There IS some kind of way to look at this that is neither tautological nor simple an issue of those in power finding an excuse to maintain their power, right?
The superpowers have a lot to lose if nuclear weapons are used.
-
Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms
There IS some kind of way to look at this that is neither tautological nor simple an issue of those in power finding an excuse to maintain their power, right?
The superpowers have a lot to lose if nuclear weapons are used.
And non-superpowers don't?
-
France has a permanent seat, too.
True, but it will be a long time before France has to play the role of the bad guy; maybe they'll get that chance when it's the UK's turn to play the villan. That would make more sense. Unlike zeg, don't think this will happen in my life time, maybe my children's.
France is allready flirting with the "rogue" role. They are in fact leading in the.. more legitimate neo-fascist movement in Europa, as in, they're among the most eager ones to legally vote racists and fascists into their gvt. Just recently some French politician talked about throwing a political opponent "into the ovens" (the opponent was Jewish :D)
This may seem trivial, but imagine if this was only 10 years ago, before we had gotten quickly used to bigotry like this exploding up everywhere
That's very interesting about France.
Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms
There IS some kind of way to look at this that is neither tautological nor simple an issue of those in power finding an excuse to maintain their power, right?
Believe it's neither rhetoric nor simple when nuclear arms are being discussed, but it's also hard to argue against that. These are real global agreements and decisions outside of the scope of the general public so for me as a member of the general public, yes, maybe simple rhetoric about ideas out of my own scope. Personally wish the UN were more open about disclosing meeting transcripts, rather than the occasional formal press release. Someone will always be in power. The nuclear arms treaty is important and unless all countries join NATO and openly account for their uranium enrichment, then the nuclear powers will never be able to disarm. The Security Council terms of the nuclear arms treaty are terms of agreement in trust as protectors against the wild cards that remain, and only to strike in retaliation to nuclear attack.
The superpowers have a lot to lose if nuclear weapons are used.
And non-superpowers don't?
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is an interesting topic. Everyone has a lot to loose from the use of nuclear weapons. It's possible it's too idealistic to imagine a time when the security council can be dismantled, but semicolon is probably referring to world trust, and the things that go along with that, economic trade and global financial security are also a big loss when trust is lost.
-
France has a permanent seat, too.
True, but it will be a long time before France has to play the role of the bad guy; maybe they'll get that chance when it's the UK's turn to play the villan. That would make more sense. Unlike zeg, don't think this will happen in my life time, maybe my children's.
France is allready flirting with the "rogue" role. They are in fact leading in the.. more legitimate neo-fascist movement in Europa, as in, they're among the most eager ones to legally vote racists and fascists into their gvt. Just recently some French politician talked about throwing a political opponent "into the ovens" (the opponent was Jewish :D)
This may seem trivial, but imagine if this was only 10 years ago, before we had gotten quickly used to bigotry like this exploding up everywhere
Let's forget about France for a moment. All of the super powers, and respectively their allies have a financial and political stake in what's been occurring in the middle east over the past few decades. Personally don't see any way around the inevitable of Europe assimilating and absorbing the middle east. In a way that process has already begun, by assimilating a portion of its general population. That's why the UK can't be the bad guy right now, they must suddenly be the arms open welcoming types to a flooding of immigration even though they've never been in any way so welcoming before, causing a culture of people to in essence be very quickly accepting the political rule of other nations. Though due to proximity, the UK will one day need to assume the role of the power they are, and are to be, with a certain higher level of governing power over the middle east. You like to think about future maps, zeg. Jack has a very interesting big picture perspective of what's really going on over there, and interested to know what you think about that.
-
Let's forget about France for a moment. All of the super powers, and respectively their allies have a financial and political stake in what's been occurring in the middle east over the past few decades. Personally don't see any way around the inevitable of Europe assimilating and absorbing the middle east. In a way that process has already begun, by assimilating a portion of its general population. That's why the UK can't be the bad guy right now, they must suddenly be the arms open welcoming types to a flooding of immigration even though they've never been in any way so welcoming before, causing a culture of people to in essence be very quickly accepting the political rule of other nations. Though due to proximity, the UK will one day need to assume the role of the power they are, and are to be, with a certain higher level of governing power over the middle east. You like to think about future maps, zeg. Jack has a very interesting big picture perspective of what's really going on over there, and interested to know what you think about that.
You make good points, and to be completely honest, I deliberately try to avoid the most-likely scenarios, because... they make me uncomfortable :D
They are reminders that huge wars will not stay clear of any region for more than 1-2 generations, and that all ethnicities, including nice white people, are just as doomed to be showered in horror when they least expect it. Every country, region, at peace, at the time, think peace is the norm - just as we think now. People in Iraq laughed and eyerolled, when confronted with the prospect of an American invasion, and that even after having had a war with America - people are quick to regard everything but right-now as almost fantasy.
I do believe that the first nuclear attack since WW2 will happen in the Middle East. Israel is an extension of the west, in the middle east, a colony that remains, and that is few by the west to be impenetrable. Were it your average independent country, it would have been destroyed allready back in 1947, since no minor country could possibly withstand the all out attack from every one of its neighbors.
So, as you imply, it is evident that the west prefers to have a firm foot still within the Middle East, but I prefer not to speculate too detailedly what will happen next. It is true tho, what you say, that "good guy" roles are only temporary, and obviously, these roles must appear convincing untill then. America is a huge example of just that, juggling a bloated "good guy"-role, with almost continous warfare, and a practical world-domination agenda, ala Mordor.
-
Thanks, zeg; that was a great response. :)
I do believe that the first nuclear attack since WW2 will happen in the Middle East.
Happen to believe the same is very possible, only slightly different. It wont happen in the Middle East, it will come from there, and believe it will be an attack on a European nation. Maybe that's why France is being allowed to be so openly politically racially motivated. The thing is, much like the US 911 attack, it will be questionable as to who really did what, and at the same time also an excellent excuse to the general public to accept the retaliation which ensues. Absolutely believe the powers within the UN are working toward a common goal. If the gradual approach that's been maintained thus far doesn't prove productive, the world will then need a good reason to be swift and final about it, and that will come in the form of a nuclear attack from the Middle East, and the US and Europe will be buddies again. Thanks for spinning out with me, on a little global conspiracy. Uncomfortable stuff, indeed. Thinking I'll stop now.
-
Uncomfortable stuff, indeed. Thinking I'll stop now.
Indeed, and precisely because it rattles our comfortable illusion that you get what you deserve, in the sense that - if only we behave nicely, and bother noone, noone will bother us. Not so. Stuff is planned, and powers plan and scheme more than most normal people like to think - and conspiracy nuts overdo with aliens and reptiles. Many countries have had their fate sealed.
Sometimes I wonder if the USA is even planned to be unravelled, at some point, that this will not come as a surprise, to those in on it. Just today I wondered if the whole "republican vs democrat" is deliberate, in order to fuel a civil war, while giving the impression that it was a random, gradually happening thing, and not at all planned.
If I can think of it, they can, and if someone benefits from thinking of such things, they do - more than me!
Speculation left and right here, but just examples of what human society is capable of - if we look at history. More than capable of!
We know Stalin ignored warnings Germany would attack. Why on earth would he ignore such a warning? "Cuz he wuz stupid" NO he wasn't!
We know Bush admin ignored warnings about a "massive scale attack". Why on earth would he ignore that?? He is indeed a doofus, but not THAT retarded! :D
Certain things we know!
But yes, no need to drag out, and +1 since you prefer a neutral karma :D
-
Sometimes I wonder if the USA is even planned to be unravelled,
People in the US contemplate that too, at least in my house they do. :tinfoil:
If I can think of it, they can...
But yes, no need to drag out...
Sometimes theory of mind can reach a level of brilliance, it can be easily defined in terms of the absurd when discussed too deeply. :laugh: Thanks.
-
Yeah, I've been hearing about how the USA is going to unravel just like Rome did, among the circle of people I know, since oh 2000 or so. With the state of the USA education and healthcare systems, it seems to be already happening.
I'll flee to Canada and live in an igloo. :tinfoil: Nobody's going to waste a nuke on Nunavut.
-
it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.
If you can make Russia and China join, then fine. :P
-
Yeah, I've been hearing about how the USA is going to unravel just like Rome did, among the circle of people I know, since oh 2000 or so. With the state of the USA education and healthcare systems, it seems to be already happening.
I'll flee to Canada and live in an igloo. :tinfoil: Nobody's going to waste a nuke on Nunavut.
Never say never. It could be as simple as someone in a bunker somewhere pointing out "you missed a spot".
-
it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.
Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.
If you can make Russia and China join, then fine. :P
The only thing I can personally do about these matters, is offer brilliant insight. :M
-
And let's not forget North Korea. :zoinks:
-
:laugh:
-
And let's not forget North Korea. :zoinks:
You mean the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. :bint: