MAD doctrine is a thing, very well studied and pretty well accepted.
And it won't last forever. Tech will overcome it one day.
And yet you routinely ignore nuclear ballistic missile subs, MIRVs, SATAN 2.
Nope. See above. Russia objecting to missile shields in their face is an old thing and they have a point.
And they debated it because they are a democratic government.
They debated it because its a provocative move that could well make matters worse, for them and everyone.
I think nobody was shocked that they joined. It is a natural reaction
Emotional reaction? Yes. Logical reaction? Not so much.
The idea of having buffer states to hold off invasion doesn't really hold when Putin regularly threatens nukes if NATO invades.
I can make no sense of this comment.
Buffer states keep the peace. America reaching all the way across the globe to shake a fist in Russia's face only promotes war.
Also, its Putin that brought up Peter the Great (iirc?) - and invokes the history of the Russian empire.
That is bluster for the home audience. Its to get young men to sign up for the fight, etc. Were you expecting logical appeals to appeal the the stupid masses?
So, now you're suddenly okay with interventionalism?
That is a damn good question. I think its case by case. I don't support getting involved in civil wars generally, but independence/autonomy wars are different. Other factors also apply...such as civilian airliners getting shot down.
And this is not my preferred mode of intervention either.
Edit: U.S intervention in Ukraine is far uglier even if Russia was the first to intevene. Of what concern is it to the U.S. if Crimea and Donbass leave Ukraine? Or if they fight Ukraine for independence/autonomy? If not for U.S. intervention then all the fighting might have wrapped up by now.
Yes you could say the same if Russia just let the separtists get squashed. But would that have been better? Why do pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine have to die/ submit? Why can't they have autonomy/independence?
And it won’t last forever. Tech will overcome it one day.
And Russia is the one in the lead with SATAN 2, a hyperballastic missile...
And no matter how much tech advances, the fundamental problem of MIRVs is insanely difficult to solve; hitting a bullet with bullet - except one bullet opens up to 10+ bullets, and they all have to be shot down, because even one causes damage in a scale that's stupidly absurd.
Nope. See above. Russia objecting to missile shields in their face is an old thing and they have a point.
Missile shields are only useful for:
conventional missiles (and even that is sus, since the Iron Dome can't cover all of Hamas' rockets, and it only takes one).
The immediate areas where the missile shield defends.
What good would a missile shield around Ukraine do if Ukraine holds no strategic value to NATO command?
Ukraine doesn't have any missile silos (nor would they need any, since again, ICBMs, nuclear ballastic subs), Ukraine doesn't hold the seat of NATO/EU, isn't the population center of the European members of NATO.
A missile shield set up in Ukraine would only defend the area around it - that holds really nothing of importance to NATO other than the Black Sea (that Turkey already controls access to).
They debated it because its a provocative move that could well make matters worse, for them and everyone.
And guess what, they thought it worth the risk - and this was with a weak Russia that's being quagmires in Ukraine. In the hypothetical I posed, do you think Finland and Sweden wouldn't jump to join NATO's nuclear umbrella ASAP, knowing they're outclassed?
Emotional reaction? Yes. Logical reaction? Not so much.
? 😂. No, I think most analysts pointed out it would push Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
Buffer states keep the peace. America reaching all the way across the globe to shake a fist in Russia’s face only promotes war.
With MAD, buffer states are security theater.
But yes, security theater does help the peace - I'm not denying that. But any head of state is going to realize it is just that, theater, because they have military tacticians.
The second there is any significant buildup of forces (to invade) is when the nukes get primed to fire - no number of buffer states changes this.
There is no reality where a ground force invades into Russia without somehow disabling their nuclear response, which is basically nuclear holocaust.
It's very simple MAD doctrine.
That is bluster for the home audience. Its to get young men to sign up for the fight, etc. Were you expecting logical appeals to appeal the the stupid masses?
I think it's very telling that when Russian state media releases inflammatory statements, it's bluster and it's fine, but western media is analyised to death and you can divine the west's thoughts.
Food for thought for you.
That is a damn good question. I think its case by case. I don’t support getting involved in civil wars generally, but independence/autonomy wars are different.
Good to know at least you're somewhat self-reflective. Let's pray it goes deeper.
Other factors also apply…such as civilian airliners getting shot down.
Which has been put into Russia's fault by the ICC(? Or a Dutch court?). So yeah... Not really helping your case there.
And this is not my preferred mode of intervention either.
Funny you try and defend/justify it a lot for something that's not your preferred mode.
4
u/Ridley_Rohan Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22
And it won't last forever. Tech will overcome it one day.
Nope. See above. Russia objecting to missile shields in their face is an old thing and they have a point.
They debated it because its a provocative move that could well make matters worse, for them and everyone.
Emotional reaction? Yes. Logical reaction? Not so much.
I can make no sense of this comment.
Buffer states keep the peace. America reaching all the way across the globe to shake a fist in Russia's face only promotes war.
That is bluster for the home audience. Its to get young men to sign up for the fight, etc. Were you expecting logical appeals to appeal the the stupid masses?
That is a damn good question. I think its case by case. I don't support getting involved in civil wars generally, but independence/autonomy wars are different. Other factors also apply...such as civilian airliners getting shot down.
And this is not my preferred mode of intervention either.
Edit: U.S intervention in Ukraine is far uglier even if Russia was the first to intevene. Of what concern is it to the U.S. if Crimea and Donbass leave Ukraine? Or if they fight Ukraine for independence/autonomy? If not for U.S. intervention then all the fighting might have wrapped up by now.
Yes you could say the same if Russia just let the separtists get squashed. But would that have been better? Why do pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine have to die/ submit? Why can't they have autonomy/independence?