Russia threatens to nuke poland

[Kemmler]

I read in yesterdays paper that because poland agreed to let the US have missile sites(?) in their country, russia said that they might attack poland, and maybe even with nukes.

Don't take this far too serious, view it as an wild and unconfirmed rumor, but still, is ww3 upon us soon?

I live in sweden, directly northeast of poland. If they decide to nuke poland, the world will have to act and my nation amongst other will be the battlefield of ww3.

Discuss.

[stasis]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Military posturing. Nuking the US radar facility would be tantamount to nuking the US, which Russia is not likely to do. It'd also be significant overkill. Given that the article is set against the backdrop of what is going on in Georgia, it reads a lot like an "omg Russia is out of control!!1" story.

[searcher]

The end of the world is nigh....*drops overdramatic manner*
I always thought that if WW3 were to surface, it would be Russia pushing it.

If nukes come out then we're all in a lot of trouble.
For example, if any place in Europe is bombed, the other ones will have to step in. Who else has nukes? France. England. The only way to retaliate to nukes is to pull our your own nukes, nothing else (barr viruses I suppose) is big enough to stop them. And then it turns into "who will run out of nukes fastest".
Bad bad bad.
If this starts happening I want to move to Mars, cause earth aint going to be pretty any more.

This is all a worst case scenario of course.
Fingers crossed that it doesn't actually happen.

[PHS Philip]

If nukes come out then we're all in a lot of trouble.
For example, if any place in Europe is bombed, the other ones will have to step in. Who else has nukes? France. England. The only way to retaliate to nukes is to pull our your own nukes, nothing else (barr viruses I suppose) is big enough to stop them. And then it turns into "who will run out of nukes fastest".




I'd rather nukes than a well engineered virus or bacteria, but not by much.


More on topic: I doubt Russia's foolish enough to actually use nukes. They know just as well as we do what would happen.

[Tocsin]

Can you imagine what will happen if George Bush's innate hubris and stupidity finds its way out of his mouth in front of a microphone again?

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that's the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. "

[onlyparallel]

Can you imagine what will happen if George Bush's innate hubris and stupidity finds its way out of his mouth in front of a microphone again?

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that's the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. "

I don't want to even fathom what this man is thinking. Lets hope he doesn't provoke other countries to the point that they decide they have to pull out their nuclear weapons.

The whole idea of a world war three is terrifying. Lets be honest, if anyone decides to nuke anyone else (especially if one of these countries are in NATO) we're all in some serious trouble.

[Sean O]

If this starts happening I want to move to Mars, cause earth aint going to be pretty any more.South America, Africa, and even Australia and New Zealand would probably still be fine. There isn't really a reason for a direct attack on any of those places, and they aren't close enough to any potential targets for a nuclear strike to experience much fallout.

[Karamazov]

It's not like it would initiate a doomsday effect. Plus, this would never transpire. It's about as noteworthy as Iran's supposed threat.

[thod]

So some General points out that having an anti missile system would make them a target if a war was declared. Like duh, isn't that obvious? This is very different to threatening to nuke them during peace time.

We have to assume that the Russians are able to understand why bombing a radar station is better than bombing an empty field. Thus anything of military significance is going to make you a target.

[Reon]

If Russia feels like taking on all of Nato, they will bomb Poland but 'nuking' them isn't going to happen. Its just stupid, its overkill, and Russia understands that, the only reason they even said they would nuke Poland is to cause fear, they are taking control of the propaganda. You can't really restrain a nuclear attack either, it tends to spread.

[PHS Philip]

South America, Africa, and even Australia and New Zealand would probably still be fine. There isn't really a reason for a direct attack on any of those places, and they aren't close enough to any potential targets for a nuclear strike to experience much fallout.

You're forgetting nuclear fallout and nuclear winter. If there's a large enough nuclear war, the fallout will be blown all over the world. If it's really big, it would also cause a nuclear winter, as far as models have been able to predict.

[Reon]

You're forgetting nuclear fallout and nuclear winter. If there's a large enough nuclear war, the fallout will be blown all over the world. If it's really big, it would also cause a nuclear winter, as far as models have been able to predict.

I agree, no matter where you are you are going to feel the effects of a nuclear strike.

[ScottH]

None of the posturing is anything more than typical politics. If Russia rattles their saber's, they are counting on the American public getting worried. No different than Kondi shaking her stick at N. Korea: "if they [whatever] we have significant, let me stress SIGNIFICANT assets in that area..."

I don't blame Russia. We "threw down" over Russia putting missiles in Cuba. Now it's not quite the same (our plans don't include putting nukes in Poland; only defense missiles), but would we let Russia put defense missile batteries between us and our enemies?

As for the results of a nuclear war... I seriously doubt any of us could guess what it would look like. On the one hand, if our visions of such a situation are close to accurate, leaders will never let it happen because there can be no winner.

On the other hand, at least America and Russia had enormous groups of people tasked with making nuclear war survivable; that is, planning an attack strategy that cripples the other, being able to shoot down ICBM's, and lots more.

Surely, one side has done a better job than the other, but, what are the chances both sides have failed?

[Kemmler]

Could someone explain in detail what happens during nuclear winter, I'm very interested to know (or if these effects aren't known, atleast the theories on it)

[thod]

Could someone explain in detail what happens during nuclear winter, I'm very interested to know (or if these effects aren't known, atleast the theories on it)

When a volcano erupts it sends dust into the upper atmosphere where it remains encircling the globe. Planetary temperatures drop as the dust prevents sunlight reaching the surface. This is observed with all major volcanic eruptions and has happen often. The currents in the upper atmosphere tend to keep it there though. So an eruption in the northern hemisphere has a lesser effect on the southern hemisphere. This effect can last several years as the dust clears.

A nuclear winter is caused by the activation of many nuclear weapons propelling the dust upwards. They may have less energy expenditure than a volcano but they are hotter. The mushroom clouds you may have seen are exactly this effect. This dust cools the planet so the summer becomes like the winter and the winter like the arctic.

With large amounts of dust the amount of sunlight reaching the surface is so reduced that there is a perpetual state of twilight on the surface. With lack of sunlight and appropriate temperatures, plant life dies off.

Thus those that survive shivering in their unheated shelters have nothing to eat. Without plants there are also no animals to provide meat. The only way to survive is cannibalism at first and then by growing mushrooms. Fungus will survive and utilize the stored energy in the wood of the dead forests. After a few years the light will return and seeds will blow in from warmer regions that managed to retain plant life of sorts. There will be very little animal or human life left alive. The same thing will happen in the oceans as the plankton die off.

It does not matter if the US nukes Russia or vice versa. The dust will spread around the hemisphere and all will die. The nuclear submarine crews had orders to head for Tasmania after releasing. It is in the southern hemisphere, has few people, and is sufficiently warm to support them through the nuclear winter.

[Reon]

From what I understand a nuclear strike would cause a lot of smoke and dirt to 'rise' into the atmosphere and this would reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. This, also combined with all of the human products (Air fresheners for example) would cause a depletion in the ozone layer.

Its not a part of nuclear winter but most of our rivers/lakes would vaporize as well, I think.

Edit: Heh, Thod explained it better so disregard this post >>

[Valiyn]

Kinda solves the problem of global warming......


Got to look on the bright side.





On the other hand.....

Santa will be pissed when he gets his heating bill durring a nuclear winter.

[OneHertz]

And then it turns into "who will run out of nukes fastest"

Doesn't work like that... I think during the cold war USA had enough nukes to kill every Russian 7 times and Russia had enough nukes to kill every American 3 times... Does it really matter who has more at that point? Enough to kill everyone or almost everyone in the countries in question... It's not like Russia doesn't have allies either, China comes to mind. I don't think nukes will be used, but Poland will definitely suffer air strikes.

This sums things up pretty well:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[sam988]

Bush is provoking, what an utter moron. Damn i hope bush's adm. ends soon before major harm is caused.

[Ytterbium]

I don't think Russia would nuke Poland in near future. However I don't think that nothing's going to happen. I'm also a Swede and I think it's sad we had cut backs in the defence. I think Europe will never be in peace. It's just some calmness between the storms. There've always been "never again" in Europe and guess what happens...

[Kemmler]

Well, I think (and hope) that we can exclude the risk of nuclear warfare, how bout ww3 then? how far is it until germany once again crosses the border to poland? xD

[zibber]

I'd be pissed off too if the US were doing to me what they're doing to Russia right now.

(Not that a part of me doesn't fervently hope for complete nuclear apocalypse.)

[Serpent7]

Doesn't work like that... I think during the cold war USA had enough nukes to kill every Russian 7 times and Russia had enough nukes to kill every American 3 times... Does it really matter who has more at that point?...
This assumes a 100% penetration rate. The whole point of having more missiles is that way your missiles can saturate the targets defenses.
For instance, most of GBs airforce has plane-launched missiles capable of hitting in-flight nukes, but the plane is generally lost. (The pilot is essentially sacrificing himself to save a city. You do the math.)
It is also worth noting that when the US did a full commitment drill, they were able to prevent all missiles from hitting. It only cost 42% of our air assets. (Mostly British)

[OneHertz]

This assumes a 100% penetration rate. The whole point of having more missiles is that way your missiles can saturate the targets defenses.
For instance, most of GBs airforce has plane-launched missiles capable of hitting in-flight nukes, but the plane is generally lost. (The pilot is essentially sacrificing himself to save a city. You do the math.)
It is also worth noting that when the US did a full commitment drill, they were able to prevent all missiles from hitting. It only cost 42% of our air assets. (Mostly British)

Russia has missles of a new tech that can not be shot down... It starts with an M... I can't remember the full name. They only have a couple of dozen of those. If you think about it, USA has like 6k warheads and Russia has 16k so if they decided to launch all at once, no meaningful amounts will be stopped. How many does it take to destroy a country? A few dozen? One for every major city and that would destroy the majority of the population...

[PeterBristolUK]

Seems like it is signed sealed and delivered (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

If the Polish people really didn't want this, then surely they would be protesting, or have I just missed the protests??

[blueback]

I think Russia's just pissed because the Soviet Union broke up but NATO is still going strong. Now former soviet block countries are being occupied by the US. There's an interview with Mikhaiel Gorbachov in Esquire; he says that Russians are proud and like to fight back when they're made fun of. American makes fun of Russia regularly. Ergo, Russia is doing what they can to remind eveyrone that they could still put up a fight.

[Kemmler]

Well, lets enlist in the army, sit down and wait for WW3. It's right around the corner now!

[Ytterbium]

Well, lets enlist in the army, sit down and wait for WW3. It's right around the corner now!No, world war five a Croatian invasion!! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Seriously we might be in the beginning of a new chilly "war". I have my "war placement" right above Poland. :scared:

[PHS Philip]

Russia has missles of a new tech that can not be shot down... It starts with an M... I can't remember the full name. They only have a couple of dozen of those. If you think about it, USA has like 6k warheads and Russia has 16k so if they decided to launch all at once, no meaningful amounts will be stopped. How many does it take to destroy a country? A few dozen? One for every major city and that would destroy the majority of the population...

Add in China (maybe), France (probably), etc, too, and you've got much of the populated Northern hemisphere getting nuked

[RabbitEars]

We were protesting, but the opinions are shared, and in fact nobody cares.
Honestly, Russia won't nuke Poland. They will start a war of course, because they like doing that at least once a century, but not now and not in the next twenty years. They have problems at their Eastern borders. Well they make those problems to a certain extent... Russia just wants to keep control, and does it in the only way it can, by instilling fear and dividing.
Now the situation in the region is too stable to start any ruckus. Russian government is agressive, but not crazy or stupid. They aren't strong enough to start a war with everybody, they have no real profit in doing that and they know it. They're just testing. Always testing. That gives profit.

Note: I don't have anything against Russian citizens. They are wonderful people. They just have very bad luck with their rulers.

[zibber]

Seems like it is signed sealed and delivered (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

If the Polish people really didn't want this, then surely they would be protesting, or have I just missed the protests??

Do these people (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) look like they're even able to stage protests the mass media would pick up on? :P

(Obviously, the Polish government is not inclined to oppose America on this.)

[Homini Lupus]

Russia would nuke Poland only if there was an advantage in doing this, but it's not going to use nukes just because its governement doesn't like the foreign policy of one of its neighbour because the loss would be much superior to the gain. A nuclear attack of Europe would be possible only in case of a full fledged war since EU countries don't have much nuclear devices to retaliate and it could lead to less damages to Russian territories than in case of an invasion (at least if russian military thinkers use the last invasion of their territory as an example). It is not very likely that such a war breaks out, but even WWI seemed impossible to the people of the times.

[RabbitEars]

Do these people (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) look like they're even able to stage protests the mass media would pick up on? :P

(Obviously, the Polish government is not inclined to oppose America on this.)

You are right, TV would not pick it up. Some newspapers, maybe.
Uh, they again are getting a real choice of photos. Shots at old PRL buildings like nothing else counts. I'm embarassed.
Poland does not look like that, even not towns like this, it's more like patchwork...

[wunderkind]

I think Russia's just pissed because the Soviet Union broke up but NATO is still going strong. Now former soviet block countries are being occupied by the US.... .

Occupied by the US ?? Definitely you are out of reality. 40 years ago Soviet army invaded Czechoslovakia. They killed people, looted, established puppet government, stationed there their forces for 21 years including nuclear weapons, used privileges and brutality against locals.
Now Czech and Slovak republics, Poland are NATO members, there are not permanent US bases - just friendly cooperation such as military training/exercises. Missile stations were of course approved by parliament and government and the US will pay some fees for land/provide weaponry for local army. These countries support placing these installations as they fear Russia`s aggressiveness.

Regarding the Russian threats
- As the compounds will dock intercepting (defense) missiles this do not present any threat for Russia (until they are not attacking the western Europe). Therefore these Russian statements are illegitimate and dreadful threats to free people.
- This marks Russian incapability of diplomacy and their imperialism which has always been characteristic for their foreign policy. Of course, the effect will only be that countries of Eastern Europe will unite to defend their freedom against aggressive Russia together with their western allies. You should recognize that freedom and democracy is worth to be defended against dictatorship and chauvinism of militaristic nations.
- After all. These threats should not be taken much seriously. Russia will not attack NATO member. They can not win nuclear war and their conventional military is ~30 years behind the west in technology. While Russia has now lot of oil money its economy will inevitably collapse again in 10-15 years as oil revenues will decrease exactly as this happened in 1980s (after oil price fall).

[Jest18]

it's really sad to watch that Russia is really considered as an 'evil and agressive country" that would probably nuke everyone who goes in the way??? Dont worry becasue Russia undergoes so many problems within the country that I can say " its eaten by its problems from the inside and most likely wont concentrate much on other wold". Though its not officially announced and determined in our society that communism with its corruption and totalitarism harmed our country and society, Russia is not pissed because the Soviet Union broke up, becasue you cant cry over spilt milk. Communism as an ideaology and system that reigned approximately 100 years prevented Russia from growing a healthy democratic society like it's westen neigbours did back then.It had nothing in the 19th century -then it was communism with Soviet Union-and eventually we came to nothing again. And that is what piss me off for real.

There was also mentioned that Russia has everything to start a WW3? all lies ....Russia wont ever attack any country because all elite and bureaucrats here make lots of money and save all their money in westen banks and then buy up all property abroad like in England or Chezh Republik so why should they attack their own property? :-( you can say all rich russians are doing exactly the same what were rich Arab doing making their money from oil. Sounds not optimistic for the rest of russian population here cause its simply ignored.

[Ytterbium]

The largest agressor is infact the United States of America. However no one really likes Russia either (it's past). Central Europe are just fawning Russia because they need their energy. Russia knows that EU is fragile it uses that fact. We can't agree on anything. I doubt EU would help or any other country for that matter. If Russia attacked either Poland or Czech Republic. Maybe EU send some containers of left over food to Poland instaed of dumping it in Africa due to the stupid CAP system.

[LaoTzu]

Its sad to see that the west still gets away with painting Russia as the bad-boy in instances like these.... and people still buy into it.

Here's another theory: Russia is being surrounded on all sides by US weaponry/spy installations/ Anti-missle technology..... and they are supposed to be OK with this???

Every former Bloc country has little agreements with the US... the US is 'renting' space basically to point all the guns they can at Russia. It's not a question of Poland not giving a damn about what thier neighbours think... it's about getting that aid.


So just like the Cuban missle crisis (for those of us in N/A....) How the hell would you like to hear that your life-long 'enemy' is setting up missle bases in your back yard??


Are we seriously going to look at Russia's response as 'misguided'??
Seems tame in comparison....

[John F Kennedy]

You are right, TV would not pick it up. Some newspapers, maybe.
Uh, they again are getting a real choice of photos. Shots at old PRL buildings like nothing else counts. I'm embarassed.
Poland does not look like that, even not towns like this, it's more like patchwork...

There's nothing to be embarrased about. There are pockets of underdevelopment everywhere. Shots of Vancouver's heroin district or Indian reserves throughout Canada would not look good either (actually, much worse). Like you said, these shots are not representative of Poland.

[Marduk]

There are many, very good reasons for Russia's neighbours to dislike it. Just look at history. Everytime Russia gets strong, it devours its neighbours, until it gets weak again. This includes Poland. Russia (and even most Russians) want Russia to return to power and shape similar to soviet union. Just look at some surveys about such matters. And Putin is just giving Russians what they want.
Most Russians regret disintegration of the Soviet Union. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) If not making Russia a superpower, then at least an illusion of Russia being a superower. And by superpower here we understand threatning every neighbour who doesn't do like it wants with nukes, embargos and invasions. By sending 4 (of 24 total) bombers to do patrols over Northern sea, like 20-30 years ago (but it was many times more of them then), sending a "fleet" of 3 warships (and a tug, just in case) to their "republics" of Cuba and Venezuela, and by getting back territories like Georgia, that were split off when soviet union broke. It is just playing a shadow of soviet union. Far smaller, but still using the same style, and trying to regain at least a part of former size and power. Ad this means being limited to threatening everyone, but unlike the real Soviet Union, being not able and\or willing to change most of these threats into reality.


Every former Bloc country has little agreements with the US... the US is 'renting' space basically to point all the guns they can at Russia. It's not a question of Poland not giving a damn about what thier neighbours think... it's about getting that aid.

Cuban missile crisis wass an affair between two pretty hostile sides. We know that today, NATO and US don't have any serious reason to be hostile towards Russia. Then why Russia considers them hostile? Why, instead of making friends with NATO, USA, etc. , they are still making friends with Castro, Chavez, and most of other anti US countries, some of them with far worse things on their conscience than just being anti US. Why Russia doesn't make a few embargos (starting with a weaponry embargo) to Iran, maybye Venezuela, stops harrasing pro US goverments on east and south, or threaten Syria to stop supporting terrorists? I'm sure that if Russia did some of these things, it would see USA consider it a friendly country, and it would see no reasons to consider NATO something hostile too. If Russia would do such things, i think it would be invited into NATO pretty soon.
But it know this will not happen. Why? Because Russia wants to be a superpower. Not with NATO. Alone. And it sees NATO as a threat, because sooner or later, NATO will stand on its not so peaceful way to becoming a superpower again, and the larger NATO wil be, the sooner it will happen. This includes even thinking of inviting Ukraine into NATO, as there can't be a new, Russia-led superpower without incorporating Ukraine into it. As i said, if Russia would like to have very good relations with NATO, it could have them. But it doesn't want them, and it has its own reason to not want them. And this reason is a very good reason for NATO (and everyone else who deosn't want to see anything similar to Soviet Union in near future) to not care about what countries Russia doesn't want to see in NATO, and what installations it doesn't want in these countries. And one another little difference between this and cuban missile crisis. There we had nuclear missile sites. An offensive installation, that could be used to strike, or retaliate. Now, we have a missile defence system. You cannot strike with it. You can just shoot down missiles with it. And by the way, many russian generals even said that this system would be completly ineffective against newer russian ballistic missiles. This is just ridiculous. Thay say the system is pointed against them and that's why it shouldn't be built, and simultaneously they say it can't do anything against them. Why should they fear something, that they say is totally ineffective against them? They cannot fear, and not fear the anti missiles at the same time, can they?
They are either lying about the cause of their fears, or about the effectivness of the system against their missiles. And as a military hobbyist i would say that their statements about the system's capabilities are fairly true.

[zibber]

We know that today, NATO and US don't have any serious reason to be hostile towards Russia. Then why Russia considers them hostile? Why, instead of making friends with NATO, USA, etc. , they are still making friends with Castro, Chavez, and most of other anti US countries, some of them with far worse things on their conscience than just being anti US.

Good lord. Did you follow the whole South-Ossetia farce? The US secretly trained Georgian troops beforehand, then nudged their leader into doing something which very predictably (and highly understandably) provoked Russia. No reason for Russia to be just slightly pissed at the US. This is just a small recent example.

[Marduk]

Good lord. Did you follow the whole South-Ossetia farce? The US secretly trained Georgian troops beforehand, then nudged their leader into doing something which very predictably (and highly understandably) provoked Russia. No reason for Russia to be just slightly pissed at the US. This is just a small recent example.
An example for a rather reverse thing. If you knew the ways Soviet Union was using in Caucasus region to keep its republics from separating, you would see them in this conflict. Three words. Divide and conquer. Soviet Union was always trying to fuel hatred between countless folks and tribes there, while simulanteously keeping them "frozen" by their mediation. When one of the folks leaves the Soviet Unon's side (or now, Russia's side) like Georgia did, Soviet Union (or Russia) unfreezes the conflict, and sides with the side obedient to them. These are now Ossetians and Abchaz people. It is unsuprising that this conflict started just after the fall of Soviet Union, isn't it? Russians give such unobedient regions a choice - you either get a leader who will obey us, or we will make you loose a good part of your territories, and if you try to keep them from separating, we will use it as a cassus belli.
Really, Russia doesn't give a fuck about Ossetians and anyone else there. They just care who obeys them, and who doesn't. Those who don't, get fucked up. If one moment, Georgia would become a obedient "friend" of Russia by electing "proper" (enlisted in KGB) leader, and Ossetia would be the one to start flirting with NATO, Russia would switch sides faster than would you notice.

[thod]

These are now Ossetians and Abchaz people.

I note you do not use the term Georgians or Russians to describe them. By my understanding these peoples are ethnic Russians in the same way a Muscovite is also a Russian. If Georgians object to being ruled by Russians, then is it not fair that Russians can object to being ruled by Georgians? Your argument would seem to revolve around an ancient border that defined Georgia. Yet the limits of Georgia are defined by the distribution of Georgians. We see a similar case with Kosovo, the Serbians claim it as Serbian, yet most of the people there are Albanian. The government of a land must be defined by the people that occupy it, else it is imperialism. There is Georgian imperialism as well as Russian. Its simply that Russia has the means to prevail by force. It was the Georgian use of force on the weaker Ossetians that started the whole conflict. They cannot complain because the same has been done to them. Unlike the Georgians, the Russians didn't attempt to occupy Tbilisi. Thus all the aggression has come from the Georgian side.

You could hold elections in these regions so they vote to join Russia proper. How did Georgia gain independence from the old Soviet Union? There was no soviet wide election to allow this and it was soviet land. The Georgians decided themselves that they wanted to be independent and this same right must be extended. The Georgians get no say in the matter.

[Marduk]

By my understanding these peoples are ethnic Russians in the same way a Muscovite is also a Russian.
Ethnically, they are no more Russians than Georgians are. The case of Ossetia is much more complicated than most people think.

It was the Georgian use of force on the weaker Ossetians that started the whole conflict. They cannot complain because the same has been done to them. Unlike the Georgians, the Russians didn't attempt to occupy Tbilisi. Thus all the aggression has come from the Georgian side.
No. This conflict haven't started in 2008. It started in 1995, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia (who ethnically had Georgian majorities in 1995 and before) were taken over by separatists, who started ethnic clensing on Georgians there. If they had chosen to try gaining independance from Georgia by vote, they would not get it then. They had taken it by killing and throwing out Georgians from there. Another thing is hate between Ossetians and Georgians, with its history going a good few centuries back. Russian involvement is totally another case. Handing out russian passports to all Ossetians (who are not russians, but want these passports, because their country is not self sustainable enough to have jobs for them, so they want to go and work in Russia) makes it look like a step to annexing these "independance wanting" states into Russia. And if you look from 1995 perspective, essentially, you see Russia annexing part of Georgian territory, by using their infamous "divide and conquer" method, invented by Soviet Union, and well known by any KGB colonel, including the one that goes by name of Wladimir Putin.

[thod]

by using their infamous "divide and conquer" method, invented by Soviet Union,

divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer)

I conclude that the Soviets didn't invent something that the Romans knew well. I suspect this strategy has been around forever.

[Marduk]

Theoretically yes. But the soviets invented a new, never used before variation of it.

[LaoTzu]

Really, Russia doesn't give a fuck about Ossetians and anyone else there. They just care who obeys them, and who doesn't. Those who don't, get fucked up. If one moment, Georgia would become a obedient "friend" of Russia by electing "proper" (enlisted in KGB) leader, and Ossetia would be the one to start flirting with NATO, Russia would switch sides faster than would you notice.


This is a tangent, and I dont mean to hijack the thread if I am.... but...

This is the same as what the US does. The only difference being the methods employed. Russia tends towards outright military action... the US on the other hand uses subtle economic action (usually by bankrupting the country with bad loans, and then benevolently offering aid in exchange for political/economic concessions).
Both achieve the same outcome. And looking at some of the third world nations that the US has created this way, and the tin-pot dictators they install to lead those people, who can say the Russian way isn't perhaps more noble?

"lets fight it out, and see who wins... then decide"



I dont advocate war. And I dont like Russia any more than you. I'm just arguing that you can't put standards on Russia that you wouldn't put on your own country. This situation is being exacerbated by two nations who shouldnt have a part in it, and are stuck in a $#%-measuring contest with each other to see who can effect the most influence in the region.

I pray for the people who have to live on that chess-board.


As for Russia pal'ling it up with Cuba, Venezuela and supposed 'antiAmerican' countries, you got to remember....

The US is Anti-THEM first and foremost. Cuba couldn't care less about what the US does... the US hates them because they're Commies. (their choice too!) And Venezuela? The US hates Chavez because he's a 'socialist'... since when is it a bad thing to give the country's booty to the country's people?? :/ The US tried to kill the guy for crying out loud....(in fact im not entirely convinced he wasn't 'replaced' with a look-alike :P)

I know it sounds like Im anti-american. I am NOT. I assure you.

I just call things as I see them. The US is an unopposed superpower exerting its influence, and people are getting bitchy about it. Nobody will do anything to the US first, and the US knows it.

Russia is just blowing into the wind.

[Marduk]

The US is Anti-THEM first and foremost. Cuba couldn't care less about what the US does... the US hates them because they're Commies. (their choice too!) And Venezuela? The US hates Chavez because he's a 'socialist'... since when is it a bad thing to give the country's booty to the country's people?? :/ The US tried to kill the guy for crying out loud....(in fact im not entirely convinced he wasn't 'replaced' with a look-alike :P)


And why do you think US is anti-commies? Did you read at least a bit of Marx? I assure you, commies never had a "Live and let live" policy towards capitalism, and this includes US. Especially since the US became a symbol of capitalism. As an international movement practically from its birth, communism is not something you can easily ignore and be neutral towards. A real, communist doesn't only want his country to be communist. He wants the whole world to be communist. Try finding some commies or Chavez-caliber socialists that are not hostile (at least in their rethoric) towards US.
Try finding communists who have a real possibility of spreading communism and don't do so. It's like US drive to spread democracy and free market, only much worse.
And by nature of the two, at some point they run into each other. And unsuprisingly, a lot conflicts in which US was involved durnind the cold war, fit this schemate - korea, vietnam, laos, practically all south american conflicts. And it all looked like communists trying to impose communism on a country with its own, non communistic system, and then having US stepping in, and preventing them from doing so.



This is the same as what the US does. The only difference being the methods employed. Russia tends towards outright military action... the US on the other hand uses subtle economic action (usually by bankrupting the country with bad loans, and then benevolently offering aid in exchange for political/economic concessions).
Both achieve the same outcome. And looking at some of the third world nations that the US has created this way, and the tin-pot dictators they install to lead those people, who can say the Russian way isn't perhaps more noble?

"lets fight it out, and see who wins... then decide"
Yes, and this basically changes the question to "In which camp is it better for the people to be, the capitalist one, or the communist one?", or, if we make a step more, "What is better - capitalism or communism?". And here, if we don't look at ideologies, but at their results, capitalism wins.
Just compare North Korea and South Korea, PRC and Taiwan, Western Germany and Eastern Germany, etc.

[SirJac]

Russia won't nuke, it's just arrogant russian humour. This isn't the first or the last time they've talked about nuking poland. You'll see more posturing in the future too, massing forces on the border etc. But unless we have another eventful decade, I don't think Russia will attack a NATO nation for a long time yet and even then I suspect they will stick with conventional weapons.

For now Russia is going to have to stick with the easy prey.

[LaoTzu]

And why do you think US is anti-commies? Did you read at least a bit of Marx? I assure you, commies never had a "Live and let live" policy towards capitalism, and this includes US. Especially since the US became a symbol of capitalism. As an international movement practically from its birth, communism is not something you can easily ignore and be neutral towards. A real, communist doesn't only want his country to be communist. He wants the whole world to be communist. Try finding some commies or Chavez-caliber socialists that are not hostile (at least in their rethoric) towards US.
Try finding communists who have a real possibility of spreading communism and don't do so. It's like US drive to spread democracy and free market, only much worse.
And by nature of the two, at some point they run into each other. And unsuprisingly, a lot conflicts in which US was involved durnind the cold war, fit this schemate - korea, vietnam, laos, practically all south american conflicts. And it all looked like communists trying to impose communism on a country with its own, non communistic system, and then having US stepping in, and preventing them from doing so.


Yes, and this basically changes the question to "In which camp is it better for the people to be, the capitalist one, or the communist one?", or, if we make a step more, "What is better - capitalism or communism?". And here, if we don't look at ideologies, but at their results, capitalism wins.
Just compare North Korea and South Korea, PRC and Taiwan, Western Germany and Eastern Germany, etc.

I think this is where we differ on the topic, as I don't hold that same view that commies want to 'spread' as thier main goal. This is the same argument used against Islam. It's fear-mongering IMO, and serves more to feed the desire to crush those ideologies than to defend against them.

I doubt anyone anywhere really believes that the US could adopt any other ideology than the one they have now, and really the only debate there is what KIND of capitalism they would best be served by. To think Cuba is trying to export anything or take anything over is ... preposterous.

Those nations and ideologies left alone and allowed to fully function as they saw fit might thrive, and cause others in the world to wonder if maybe they should adopt similar principles.... and THAT is the only real danger to capitalism. Making the people think there might be another way.

And I don't consider NK a communist state... It's a dictatorship run by a total nutjob.

The problem in the world isn't the USA... its just that the USA is unchecked in power. There is no real balance. And to that end, you will see statements like Russia's... testing the US, warning them. Nothing will come of it in the end.

Im kind of rooting for China to take it's place as a superpower, if only to get some balance back in the world.

[Marduk]

I think this is where we differ on the topic, as I don't hold that same view that commies want to 'spread' as thier main goal. This is the same argument used against Islam. It's fear-mongering IMO, and serves more to feed the desire to crush those ideologies than to defend against them.
You made me wonder if you ever talked with a any communist, or read just one quote from Marx. If commies don't want to spread their ideology, why did Marx come up with the slogan "Workers of all countries, unite!"? Why ALL countries? How did Comintern and other communist internationals get their names? And why THIS (International Communist Current) exists and is what it is? Look at the founding organisation's names. Their aspiration to spread commnism is even in one of their names. It is World Revolution. World, not one country, world. However, there is a brand of socialism dhat does not want to spread itself over other countries. It is called national socialism, as opposed to international socialism.
Islam? Check this.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And see a muslim who shows you what is his dream:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Muslims showing what their aims are:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In summary, Khilafah is the political system in Islam. It is responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it social, economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and maintaining its implementation. It is also responsible for spreading the message of Islam to the world. Khilafah is the Islamic state which the Prophet (pbuh) ought to create and worked for in Mecca, for a period of thirteen years, until he (pbuh) established it Medina.
=>It is also responsible for spreading the message of Islam to the world.<=

And I don't consider NK a communist state... It's a dictatorship run by a total nutjob.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" Juche Socialist Republic,
Single-party communist state"
As history shows, being a dictatorship, or being run by a nutjob, are nothing that would prevent a country from being communist.

The problem in the world isn't the USA... its just that the USA is unchecked in power. There is no real balance. And to that end, you will see statements like Russia's... testing the US, warning them. Nothing will come of it in the end.
Durning the cold war, there was the "balance". And how did it look? Much worse than the actual "lack of balance". Russia was still testing US, warning US, threatening neighbours, and, ulike now, even getting into in proxy wars.
There is no need for a "balance". There is a need for all major powers to have sane, rational, senseful, nonaggresive, live-and-let-live policies, both foreign and internal. When any major power doesn't fit this statement, problems start to arise. The "balance", means having similar amount of power on the other side, that means countries with irrational, senseless, agressive policies. Common sense says that adding them to the world is really not going to make it a better place. Look at the USSR. It was a balance for the US power. Was the world better then because of this?

Im kind of rooting for China to take it's place as a superpower, if only to get some balance back in the world.
China? If it ever becomes a superpower, you will regret it did. Essentialy, it is a crossover between Soviet Union and a money driven dictatorship, with abig chunk of nationalism. Less focus on ideology, more focus on money. It's still a communist state. It have an advanced censorship and propaganda apparatus, total disregard for everything called human rights, and it's international policy is no better. Look at Darfur. And look how they keep threating Taiwan with a military invasion.