India has to worry about China, and China has nukes, so India needed nukes as well to not get bullied by China.
I may have been stoopid, but I assumed it was about Pakistan. China makes a good deal more sense. And then Pakistan had to develop nukes in order to not be at a disadvantage vs. India.
Japan proves you don't need nukes to be a great power, however.
Japan is no great power. It's an economic power, but to be a great power, you have to at least be able to project power regionally. The only great powers are the ones that are somewhat at par with the US: China, Russia and the Taliban.
Nah, Hitler did not use chemical weapons even though his regime was clearly going to fall. Japan didn't, either. Neither of them would have used nukes if they had them for the exact same reason.
Did Japan even have chemical weapons? This makes no sense. Hitler was preparing to drag down the entire Reich with him. I don't know why he did not use chemical weapons, but I know that it's not for any moral reason or because he feared dying (or destruction).
Germany & Japan also prove that even losing a war by conquest or unconditional surrender is only a temporary setback that can be overcome in a few years provided the conquerors don't plan on occupying and subjugating you long term.
Germany and Japan are occupied countries at the moment. Hell, Germany can't even protest its pipelines being blown up by its master. It has no sovereignty, but then again, none of us in the EU do.
If you're a Russian military officer and NATO armies are invading Russia, and you don't push the button, the worst that happens is that Russia becomes a democracy.
The early 1990s. Which is pretty bad.
If anything your family might get a better life. You push that button? Your family dies. It's an easy choice. Very, very few Russians are willing to die for the "regime" as opposed to saving themselves and their families.
By that logic, nuclear weapons will never be used. Of course, that is nonsense. So if Russia nukes some US bases in Europe, you won't press the button because you don't want to be glassed. Don't be absurd. Like I said, Putin (or whoever) will use nukes if his regime is threatened, because for any regime, not being in power is the worst thing that can happen.
Wrong. Americans genuinely care about one another, if a little less about political enemies. 9/11 proved that beyond all doubt. It doesn't matter that 9/11 killed a bunch of jews and libtards, Red America rose up willing to fight to avenge it.
Biden doesn't care about you. He doesn't care if you live or die. And my government (a "modern democracy") sure as hell doesn't care about me. C'mon man, how are you this naive?
Your mentality is correct as to China, Russia, North Korea, Myanmar, and some other shitholes, but it isn't true at all in modern democracies.
It's especially true in "modern democracies". In divine right monarchy, you at least have a small chance that a non-sociopath will come to the throne. In "democracies", it's a literal impossibility. They don't care about their people, except insofar as it hurts them. What "democracies" do well is that sending your people to die will hurt you politically, so they are less likely to do it than a Mao. But that is the only reason they don't do it, not because Biden is some sort of great moral light.
Ordering a full mobilization would be far less costly for Russia while also being more militarily effective.
Probably.
Democracy greatly limits elite power. The leftist elites were able to successfully stop Bernie Sanders, twice, by manipulating blacks, but they couldn't stop Trump.
They stopped Trump in his tracks, he got nothing done, and now they're jailing him for the temerity to win an election. "Democracy" is a fiction. You are possessed by your two-party mindset, persuaded yourself that all your ills of your country come from Democrats, but I can see that much more clearly in multi-party European elections. It doesn't matter who wins. You get screwed either way, and the elites always win.
In Russia there is no convincing necessary, whatever the elites agree on is going to be what happens, 0 fucks given about what the public at large thinks.
And yet Putin has higher approval than any European or American leader.
This was the lesson Hitler taught for all time when he kept eating one country after another and said "I promise this is the last one" and the cowards just let him do it the first few times. Never again. Hence why the strong reaction to stop Putin in Ukraine.
Your problem is that the only history you know is Hitler.
The American voter ultimately decides policy in this country, both through elections in a big way, and through polling in a day-to-day way.
Princeton showed otherwise. The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything.
There is no such thing as the "military-industrial complex" that's just a propaganda meme from the Left. All the defense contractors don't meet in a shadowy room and scheme, they mostly hate each other because they're competitors.
But they all agree they want more war, and more military spending. And they bribe politicians to get what they want.
It has been debated but it's wrong. here is the source:
Where did you find this? I can't find the book 'Tactical'.
I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing though. You're talking about a strategic attack (because "on the United States"). My source seemed to suggest a tactical strike.
I'm not a "jingoist", I'm merely stating the facts as they were believed at the time, and they were rightfully believed.
You said it was a good thing to risk nuclear war over something so stupid. One of the most interesting things to me was that Kennedy ordered US bases in Turkey and Italy to not strike if the USSR decided to bomb those nuclear facilities in retaliation.
Putin's caution is a reflection of the fact that he doesn't hold absolute power in Russia and therefore has to proceed in a way that is compromising and limited in order to ensure he gets cooperation within his regime.
Elsewhere, you claim that he has complete control and that he can even sign away parts of the territory of the state without being assassinated by the army or the FSB.
When I told you what MAD stops, MAD stops a general nuclear exchange. It also reduces the odds of a 1-shot attack, but such an attack is far more likely if the attacker sees the defender as weak-willed and unwilling to respond, or excessively fearful of nukes. Of course any miscalculation and you get escalation to nuclear holocaust.
I think it's almost certan that you will get miscalculation in situations like that. If you don't strike back, the other side will escalate. If you strike back too hard, he feels he has to retaliate harder. It's pretty mad.
Japan is a great power. It might not have a powerful military right this moment, but nobody doubts it could build one quickly if it felt threatened. It is the most technologically advanced country in the world after the US.
somewhat at par with the US: China, Russia and the Taliban.
Actual list: EU, Japan. China isn't worthy of being on the list yet. It is an aspiring power that has accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of flexing power. It would have to start and win a war or 2 to claim that status, which is exactly what it plans to do. Too bad for China it will almost certainly fail.
"A 1945-planned kamikaze attack on San Diego with I-400-class submarine aircraft carriers that would deploy Aichi M6As floatplanes and drop fleas infected with bubonic plague was code-named Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night.[1] The plans were rejected by Hideki Tojo who feared similar retaliation by the United States."
Hitler was preparing to drag down the entire Reich with him. I don't know why he did not use chemical weapons, but I know that it's not for any moral reason or because he feared dying (or destruction).
Hitler was convinced by Speer to not follow a "scorched earth" policy, though he wanted to.
Hermann Göring stated that the reason Hitler didn't use chemical weapons even during Götterdämmerung was because the German military was heavily reliant on horses (unlike the Allies and Soviets), so if Germany used them, the retaliatory chemical weapons attacks would have killed all the horses and immobilized the German Army.
In other words, it was a rational cost/benefit calculation where the costs outweighed the benefits.
Japan used them on China because China didn't have them, but neither Hitler nor Tojo used them because in both cases they feared retaliation.
Germany and Japan are occupied countries at the moment. Hell, Germany can't even protest its pipelines being blown up by its master. It has no sovereignty, but then again, none of us in the EU do.
Nobody believes this, not even you.
The early 1990s. Which is pretty bad.
Russian culture, rotted away by communism, has a lot of growing up to do before it can form a functional and healthy democracy, but a corrupt kleptocracy like it has now is a recipe for permanent failure. South Korea & Taiwan were able to eventually become thriving democracies. Russia can, too. It will just take time.
By that logic, nuclear weapons will never be used. Of course, that is nonsense. So if Russia nukes some US bases in Europe, you won't press the button because you don't want to be glassed. Don't be absurd. Like I said, Putin (or whoever) will use nukes if his regime is threatened, because for any regime, not being in power is the worst thing that can happen.
It's entirely possible that Americans will lose their nerve and accept getting nuked without a nuclear response. I hope that does not happen, but it might. If it does happen, it will likely be the end of human civilization. Nukes must be met with nukes. The nuclear taboo must be preserved, or else the world will end. Better that tens of millions die, than billions.
Biden doesn't care about you. He doesn't care if you live or die.
He would if I voted for him. He cares dearly about California.
They stopped Trump in his tracks, he got nothing done
He got plenty done. Big tax cut, peace in the middle east, tariffs against China, partially built the wall & kept down illegals, and much more. He got less done than he could have, but less isn't nothing.
And yet Putin has higher approval than any European or American leader.
Nobody believes this. Russia lies about stuff like that all the time. It's like how Xi Jinping just got re-elected with a unanimous vote, not even 1 dissenter. Nobody believes that the voters were voting honestly. It was "vote Xi or off to the camps". Same with Russia, either the govt just lies outright, or if they do use a real poll, everyone is too afraid to dissent because they think the government will punish them.
Your problem is that the only history you know is Hitler.
Dumb comment from you. I'm generally a historical expert and have proven my broad historical knowledge over and over to you.
Princeton showed otherwise. The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything.
Idk why you lie about shit all the time. I had to look up this "Princeton study", ir should be cited as "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page.
It is the opinion of 2 guys, not the official position of anyone. Martin Gilens is a hard core libtard who pushes far left political talking points, such as "Americans don't like welfare because of racism". Benjamin I. Page is similar. These are libtards pushing a political agenda, not arguing in good faith. But you embrace them because of confirmation bias.
A genuine right winger wouldn't be citing to these people as reliable sources, but you do, because you're not a genuine right winger. You just wear right wing politics as a cloak so push Russian nationalism. Your political views are generally left wing except for cultural issues.
Anyway:
The study did not claim "The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything." Instead, it claimed that rich elites have more power, but "To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor"
They openly called their methodology guesswork and "imperfect" many times. It was worthless because it was just a projection of their own biases. Liberals have, for a very long time now, claimed to be populist, and claimed to be fighting against the domination of the elites in politics. It's part of their marketing. That has been exposed to be a lie now thanks to Trump, who was populist, and Hillary/Biden, who were elitist.
They openly admitted that INTEREST GROUPS dominate politics, which is true. INTEREST GROUPS are not "elites" as you use the term. The NRA is an interest group. It represents a populist opposition to gun control. Sometimes interest groups represent elites, sometimes they represent a broad populist base on a given issue. Interest groups are the vehicle through which populist movements generally express themselves.
But they all agree they want more war, and more military spending. And they bribe politicians to get what they want.
Raytheon doesn't need war to get lots of military spending. The US spends enormous amounts on them in peacetime, and during war, the spending shifts away from equipment and more towards personnel and logistics, which Raytheon doesn't get a piece of. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't necessarily benefit Raytheon. While Raytheon might have made a little money off of some weapons, it was a very small piece of the overall spending, and that heightened spending resulted in Obama making cuts later. So I reject the idea that defense contractors ever act in a manner to provoke war in order to profit. It simply does not work that way except in a conspiratorial mind.
Only war with China would stand to seriously bring potential for profits, but the risks would also be enormous. Much better to instead promote FEAR of China, without encouraging war, which is what they all actually do.
Where did you find this? I can't find the book 'Tactical'. I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing though. You're talking about a strategic attack (because "on the United States"). My source seemed to suggest a tactical strike.
It included tactical in what that guy was saying. If you google the quotes you should see the source. I don't keep that stuff saved. I pull it up as needed.
Elsewhere, you claim that he has complete control and that he can even sign away parts of the territory of the state without being assassinated by the army or the FSB.
Putin has complete political control, but does not have the power to make anything he commands happen without limitation like Stalin could. He knows if he asks for too much, it simply will not happen and he will get excuses instead of results, so he operates within his perceived limits.
And nobody takes Russia's "annexing" of small parts of Ukraine seriously. Easy come, easy go, Russia ran away from Kherson without anyone getting assassinated. The same would be true for the rest.
I think it's almost certan that you will get miscalculation in situations like that. If you don't strike back, the other side will escalate. If you strike back too hard, he feels he has to retaliate harder. It's pretty mad.
Hence why the only rational course is to maximally punish and deter even reaching that point, which means not trying to lean on bullshit nuke threats as a cope or tool of foreign policy.
I may have been stoopid, but I assumed it was about Pakistan. China makes a good deal more sense. And then Pakistan had to develop nukes in order to not be at a disadvantage vs. India.
Japan is no great power. It's an economic power, but to be a great power, you have to at least be able to project power regionally. The only great powers are the ones that are somewhat at par with the US: China, Russia and the Taliban.
Did Japan even have chemical weapons? This makes no sense. Hitler was preparing to drag down the entire Reich with him. I don't know why he did not use chemical weapons, but I know that it's not for any moral reason or because he feared dying (or destruction).
Germany and Japan are occupied countries at the moment. Hell, Germany can't even protest its pipelines being blown up by its master. It has no sovereignty, but then again, none of us in the EU do.
The early 1990s. Which is pretty bad.
By that logic, nuclear weapons will never be used. Of course, that is nonsense. So if Russia nukes some US bases in Europe, you won't press the button because you don't want to be glassed. Don't be absurd. Like I said, Putin (or whoever) will use nukes if his regime is threatened, because for any regime, not being in power is the worst thing that can happen.
Biden doesn't care about you. He doesn't care if you live or die. And my government (a "modern democracy") sure as hell doesn't care about me. C'mon man, how are you this naive?
It's especially true in "modern democracies". In divine right monarchy, you at least have a small chance that a non-sociopath will come to the throne. In "democracies", it's a literal impossibility. They don't care about their people, except insofar as it hurts them. What "democracies" do well is that sending your people to die will hurt you politically, so they are less likely to do it than a Mao. But that is the only reason they don't do it, not because Biden is some sort of great moral light.
Probably.
They stopped Trump in his tracks, he got nothing done, and now they're jailing him for the temerity to win an election. "Democracy" is a fiction. You are possessed by your two-party mindset, persuaded yourself that all your ills of your country come from Democrats, but I can see that much more clearly in multi-party European elections. It doesn't matter who wins. You get screwed either way, and the elites always win.
And yet Putin has higher approval than any European or American leader.
Your problem is that the only history you know is Hitler.
Princeton showed otherwise. The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything.
But they all agree they want more war, and more military spending. And they bribe politicians to get what they want.
Where did you find this? I can't find the book 'Tactical'.
I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing though. You're talking about a strategic attack (because "on the United States"). My source seemed to suggest a tactical strike.
You said it was a good thing to risk nuclear war over something so stupid. One of the most interesting things to me was that Kennedy ordered US bases in Turkey and Italy to not strike if the USSR decided to bomb those nuclear facilities in retaliation.
Elsewhere, you claim that he has complete control and that he can even sign away parts of the territory of the state without being assassinated by the army or the FSB.
I think it's almost certan that you will get miscalculation in situations like that. If you don't strike back, the other side will escalate. If you strike back too hard, he feels he has to retaliate harder. It's pretty mad.
Japan is a great power. It might not have a powerful military right this moment, but nobody doubts it could build one quickly if it felt threatened. It is the most technologically advanced country in the world after the US.
Actual list: EU, Japan. China isn't worthy of being on the list yet. It is an aspiring power that has accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of flexing power. It would have to start and win a war or 2 to claim that status, which is exactly what it plans to do. Too bad for China it will almost certainly fail.
lol yes they famously tested them on the Chinese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changde
"A 1945-planned kamikaze attack on San Diego with I-400-class submarine aircraft carriers that would deploy Aichi M6As floatplanes and drop fleas infected with bubonic plague was code-named Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night.[1] The plans were rejected by Hideki Tojo who feared similar retaliation by the United States."
Hitler was convinced by Speer to not follow a "scorched earth" policy, though he wanted to.
Hermann Göring stated that the reason Hitler didn't use chemical weapons even during Götterdämmerung was because the German military was heavily reliant on horses (unlike the Allies and Soviets), so if Germany used them, the retaliatory chemical weapons attacks would have killed all the horses and immobilized the German Army.
In other words, it was a rational cost/benefit calculation where the costs outweighed the benefits.
Japan used them on China because China didn't have them, but neither Hitler nor Tojo used them because in both cases they feared retaliation.
Nobody believes this, not even you.
Russian culture, rotted away by communism, has a lot of growing up to do before it can form a functional and healthy democracy, but a corrupt kleptocracy like it has now is a recipe for permanent failure. South Korea & Taiwan were able to eventually become thriving democracies. Russia can, too. It will just take time.
It's entirely possible that Americans will lose their nerve and accept getting nuked without a nuclear response. I hope that does not happen, but it might. If it does happen, it will likely be the end of human civilization. Nukes must be met with nukes. The nuclear taboo must be preserved, or else the world will end. Better that tens of millions die, than billions.
He would if I voted for him. He cares dearly about California.
He got plenty done. Big tax cut, peace in the middle east, tariffs against China, partially built the wall & kept down illegals, and much more. He got less done than he could have, but less isn't nothing.
Nobody believes this. Russia lies about stuff like that all the time. It's like how Xi Jinping just got re-elected with a unanimous vote, not even 1 dissenter. Nobody believes that the voters were voting honestly. It was "vote Xi or off to the camps". Same with Russia, either the govt just lies outright, or if they do use a real poll, everyone is too afraid to dissent because they think the government will punish them.
Dumb comment from you. I'm generally a historical expert and have proven my broad historical knowledge over and over to you.
Idk why you lie about shit all the time. I had to look up this "Princeton study", ir should be cited as "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page.
It is the opinion of 2 guys, not the official position of anyone. Martin Gilens is a hard core libtard who pushes far left political talking points, such as "Americans don't like welfare because of racism". Benjamin I. Page is similar. These are libtards pushing a political agenda, not arguing in good faith. But you embrace them because of confirmation bias.
A genuine right winger wouldn't be citing to these people as reliable sources, but you do, because you're not a genuine right winger. You just wear right wing politics as a cloak so push Russian nationalism. Your political views are generally left wing except for cultural issues.
Anyway:
The study did not claim "The American voter has ZERO influence on policy. Elites decide everything." Instead, it claimed that rich elites have more power, but "To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor"
They openly called their methodology guesswork and "imperfect" many times. It was worthless because it was just a projection of their own biases. Liberals have, for a very long time now, claimed to be populist, and claimed to be fighting against the domination of the elites in politics. It's part of their marketing. That has been exposed to be a lie now thanks to Trump, who was populist, and Hillary/Biden, who were elitist.
They openly admitted that INTEREST GROUPS dominate politics, which is true. INTEREST GROUPS are not "elites" as you use the term. The NRA is an interest group. It represents a populist opposition to gun control. Sometimes interest groups represent elites, sometimes they represent a broad populist base on a given issue. Interest groups are the vehicle through which populist movements generally express themselves.
Raytheon doesn't need war to get lots of military spending. The US spends enormous amounts on them in peacetime, and during war, the spending shifts away from equipment and more towards personnel and logistics, which Raytheon doesn't get a piece of. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't necessarily benefit Raytheon. While Raytheon might have made a little money off of some weapons, it was a very small piece of the overall spending, and that heightened spending resulted in Obama making cuts later. So I reject the idea that defense contractors ever act in a manner to provoke war in order to profit. It simply does not work that way except in a conspiratorial mind.
Only war with China would stand to seriously bring potential for profits, but the risks would also be enormous. Much better to instead promote FEAR of China, without encouraging war, which is what they all actually do.
It included tactical in what that guy was saying. If you google the quotes you should see the source. I don't keep that stuff saved. I pull it up as needed.
Putin has complete political control, but does not have the power to make anything he commands happen without limitation like Stalin could. He knows if he asks for too much, it simply will not happen and he will get excuses instead of results, so he operates within his perceived limits.
And nobody takes Russia's "annexing" of small parts of Ukraine seriously. Easy come, easy go, Russia ran away from Kherson without anyone getting assassinated. The same would be true for the rest.
Hence why the only rational course is to maximally punish and deter even reaching that point, which means not trying to lean on bullshit nuke threats as a cope or tool of foreign policy.