rmanx Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Irrelevant. Ukraine would never had started a nuke fight with Russia over Crimea. Russia would have "dealt" with that issue initially, and their S-500 would remove any threats that made it into the air. We invaded Iraq, and they supposedly had WMD's...unless we already knew they didn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Irrelevant. Ukraine would never had started a nuke fight with Russia over Crimea. Russia would have "dealt" with that issue initially, and their S-500 would remove any threats that made it into the air. We invaded Iraq, and they supposedly had WMD's...unless we already knew they didn't... Nonsense. If Ukraine had still possessed nuclear weapons, the issue would never have arisen. Crimea would still be in Ukraine. Russia would not have chanced its arm. Putin calculated on a weak response, so he went ahead. He would not have challenged a nuclear armed state. These things are not for use. They are insurance. The way I would deal with a bully is to tell him that if he carries on there is a distinct possiblilty that he could be vapourised. It's what has avoided symmetrical warfare in Europe for the last 70 years. The way you would deal with him is to talk to him nicely and persuade him that he would be a better person if he stopped. To show good faith to him we will scrap our nuclear weapons. And we see the result of this idiocy in Ukraine. Iraq is totally irrelevant. Their WMDs were (supposed to be) chemical weapons, not long distance nuclear ballistic massiles. Obviously I was right about you believing in unilateral nuclear disarmament. I suggest you do a lecture tour in Ukraine on its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 And the bay of pigs invasion would never have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Usual nonsense from Woolley. Russia would still have "invaded" (invaded is the wrong term for many reasons) as they have the means to neutralise Ukraine's nuke capability. The fact they were already in Crimea at the time supports my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 And the bay of pigs invasion would never have happened? Why is this relevant? I can make it relevant for you. If Castro had had his finger on the button then no, it wouldn't have happened. But somebody in Moscow was in control and they weren't going to risk Russia for Cuba. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Usual nonsense from Woolley. Russia would still have "invaded" (invaded is the wrong term for many reasons) as they have the means to neutralise Ukraine's nuke capability. The fact they were already in Crimea at the time supports my point. At what time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Usual nonsense from Woolley. Russia would still have "invaded" (invaded is the wrong term for many reasons) as they have the means to neutralise Ukraine's nuke capability. The fact they were already in Crimea at the time supports my point. At what time? The time that Russia moved into Crimea. Look up "Polite Men" or "Polite People"...Personnel wearing no insignia who talked down and talked their way into Crimean military and important locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 And the bay of pigs invasion would never have happened?Why is this relevant? I can make it relevant for you. If Castro had had is finger on the button then no, it wouldn't have happened. But somebody in Moscow was in control and they weren't going to risk Russia for Cuba. See? I see it woolley. Do you see it with ukraine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I understand the history. Crimea is full of ethnic Russians who obviously have an affinity with Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine when both were Soviet republics as a "gift" from fraternal Russia, but he really did it to skew the influence of Russia in Ukraine. Since he was the boss anyway, it had no consequences until both were independent. I know about the Russian activities in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and would even grant that there is certainly a case that Crimea should be in Russia. However, this does not alter the fact that had the Ukraine president had his finger hovering over the button of an independent nuclear deterrent, the events we have seen over the past couple of years would not have happened. Putin would never have sanctioned it. He is not a fool. He would not risk a situation where there was even a possibility that he had to back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 But that's the point woolley. Had russia not moved then, ukraine would have had american nukes based there, plus a missile shield. Bearing in mind how things are progressing right now putin would have been a fool to allow ukraine to become another us puppet state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I don't see that he had any other option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 But that's the point woolley. Had russia not moved then, ukraine would have had american nukes based there, plus a missile shield. Bearing in mind how things are progressing right now putin would have been a fool to allow ukraine to become another us puppet state. That might be so stinky, but it doesn't change the fact I was making about nuclear deterrence. If anything it reinforces it. I don't actually think that the Ukraine would have had US nuclear weapons any time soon, but if you are saying that Putin went in to pre-empt nuclear weapons being installed there in due course, then it proves the point he attacked sooner rather than later knowing that he wouldn't fancy doing so after the fact. He wants easy wins, not confrontation. What do you call a US puppet state? Any West European democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Pretty much woolley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Luckily the Dutch stopped another Muslim Menace from.committing mass murder. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-terror-attacks-europe-netherlands-plot-dutch-rotterdam-man-arrested-kalashnikov-explosives-a7465886.html You've really got to wonder why they bother with the flags. "shit, I would have got away with it if I'd left the flag at home!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 "after police found a loaded Kalashnikov and explosives alongside the groups flag." Very believable....I thought they were cracking down on fake news...seem that many are still falling for this tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.