Putin arrives in Venezuela to meet U.S. foes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like containment and nuclear deterrence never happened, and never will again.

Honestly, I don't get it. It worked against a real Soviet threat for over 40 years. Assuming it wouldn't work against the likes of an Iran or a Venezuela makes very little sense.

---

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

This is also why the Iranian bomb is in fact a threat. As is the N. Korean bomb. Our leaders do a totally totally shitty job of explaining the threats to the people, instead relying on republican jingoistic babble 101.

It's bad enough N. Korea has the ballistic missle capabilities of reaching LA, if they kept advancing, and a small nuke was exploded in the atmosphere above LA, a huge chunk of the country's westside electrical grid would be totally shut down, and thousands if not millions would die. It's not as simple as just turning the juice back on.
Problem is people think it's just a problem of part of a city getting nuked....that's not the true nature of the threat in the 21st century. Containment in that aspect is still fully functional.

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.
It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

I guess we should invade (or just bomb the hell out of) every country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Can't_Be_Faded

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

---

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Can't_Be_Faded

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.

It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

---

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

I guess we should invade (or just bomb the hell out of) every country.

---

There's this too.

Is it practical or wise to wage war preemptively against everyone we perceive as a nuclear threat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

---

So then we should invest whole heartedly in missile shields. Lasers from satellites and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

There's this too.

Is it practical or wise to wage war preemptively against everyone we perceive as a nuclear threat?

---

strike and destroy their nuclear program - yes

attacking and then "rebuilding" - no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4cc

Is it ever right to go to war, over sandwiches?

Aha! See that's where I thought you were going. The answer is no.

---

Are we talking about roast beef with that cool dipping saunce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The problem with nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not the nuke-a-city and mass destruction via fallout type shit that we worried about in the containment era.

The problem is a small tactical nuke combined with modern day rocketry available to states such as Iran, S. Korea, and any douche South American country poses a threat in the form of an EMP. Any small nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the earth will completely fry the entire electrical grid and all electronic devices on the earth's surface in a wide range.

This is also why the Iranian bomb is in fact a threat. As is the N. Korean bomb. Our leaders do a totally totally shitty job of explaining the threats to the people, instead relying on republican jingoistic babble 101.

It's bad enough N. Korea has the ballistic missle capabilities of reaching LA, if they kept advancing, and a small nuke was exploded in the atmosphere above LA, a huge chunk of the country's westside electrical grid would be totally shut down, and thousands if not millions would die. It's not as simple as just turning the juice back on.
Problem is people think it's just a problem of part of a city getting nuked....that's not the true nature of the threat in the 21st century. Containment in that aspect is still fully functional.

Manny touched on this but I think its an even bigger loss of power than most would think if we allowed a state in our own hemisphere to become a nuclear power.
It would be a huge huge deal from a security standpoint if we allowed this to happen.

---

N. Korea launches a nuke at the US and Pyongyang becomes a bowl of slowly cooling glass. N. Korea aint gonna play this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

strike and destroy their nuclear program - yes.

---

If they have the technical know how, wouldn't this just steel their resolve to rebuild it?

Do you see any drawbacks to a policy that requires a notionally infinite number of preemptive strikes against a rival's technical base?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

And risk nuclear annihilation by the US? Why would anyone do it? It seems to me this is where massive nuclear deterrence plays a part, unless you're suggesting rogue states with limited nuke capabilities can prevent our nuclear response.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Sure. But this recurs to ElNono's point: can we really prevent it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent proliferation of nukes, only that the odds are not in our favor over time, against determined adversaries with the technical means of doing it.

---

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking


All it would take to devestate the US for decades is three nukes
one over the west, one over the south, and one over the east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If they have the technical know how, wouldn't this just steel their resolve to rebuild it?

Do you see any drawbacks to a policy that requires a notionally infinite number of preemptive strikes against a rival's technical base?

---

with Iran, it would need boots on the ground, because of how far underground it is, i think. But yeah they would just rebuild. I think for Iran's case, embargo might be a better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking


All it would take to devestate the US for decades is three nukes
one over the west, one over the south, and one over the east.

---

We have nuclear subs all over the globe that contain far more nukes than a silo in america. I would hope that they have a back up plan if we were hit with that electric bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

The point is, if our electrical grid is out and all electrical devices with it
how do we even issue orders to nuke something much less do the actual nuking
.

---

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=NI000451&page=1

The more countries get nukes, the more nukes in existence, the more nukes in existence, the easier for someone or a group of somebodies not aligned with any country to get ahold of said nukes.

If America fucking let three nukes mysteriously dissapear and end up in new orleans a few years ago do you really want to trust Iran and countries with dubious political stability like Venezuela with them?

If Venezuela attacks us, yes we can attack them but what if they lose a nuke and a few people act of their own accord with the nuke

According to ChumpDumper the 9/11 commission report is gospel, if that's the case then it's indeed possible for terrorists to mastermind an insanely intricate and low probability plot with near perfect execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

So then we should invest whole heartedly in missile shields. Lasers from satellites and all.

---

Not gonna help you with a nuke in a suitcase scenario. You know, tech makes things smaller and smaller, and we still have that leaking border...

And BTW, the EMP scenario is easily worked around, unless you can knock down every spy satellite circling the globe. Not to mention that an EMP would be localized, at worst, over the entire country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

If Venezuela attacks us, yes we can attack them but what if they lose a nuke and a few people act of their own accord with the nuke

---

That will never happen. Ever. And for one simple reason, oil. The U.S. accounts for 65 percent of the oil exports of Venezuela. So like I said, that would NEVER happen.

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

"it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere"

Maybe Russia thinks it sucks that US is installing missiles in Eastern Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

That will never happen. Ever. And for one simple reason, oil. The U.S. accounts for 65 percent of the oil exports of Venezuela. So like I said, that would NEVER happen.

Chavez like all men wants power. To keep it as long as he can, and he'll never be allowed to do that if he decides to 1) Cut off the U.S. or 2) Attack the U.S.

---

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Everything with Chavez returns to his insecurity and consequent narcissism. Basically, he wants to be internationally liked and respected for his noble gestures, even if his noble gestures come at the cost of his citizens.

If he's a threat to the United States, it's more on the level of an extremely deep pocket for socialist candidates in Latin American politics, as has been shown in the most recent Mexican, Peruvian, Colombian, Bolivian, and Argentine (to greater or lesser degrees of success) elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"it sucks that Russia is sticking its dick in our hemisphere"

Maybe Russia thinks it sucks that US is installing missiles in Eastern Europe?

---

Wow, you are extremely late to the party, Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago.

"Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago"

The Russians know the war-mongering, murderous Repugs will put them back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama stopped this about 6 or 7 months ago"

The Russians know the war-mongering, murderous Repugs will put them back.

---

Even if this were the case, it's doubtful that the E. Europeans would allow this again.

why? US military imperialistic boondoggles mean $Bs to the local economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

why? US military imperialistic boondoggles mean $Bs to the local economies.

---

So the war-mongering, murderous locals get the assist? :lmao :lmao