CreepyPirate wrote:
Duke Juker wrote:
Well, of course, they aren't going to be happy when a nearby country has US nuclear missiles in it. I still this that if the US wanted to respond to Russia with nukes, they have so many nukes in different spots that for Russia to call us out on nukes in Poland is quite irrelevant. The fact would still remain that we would nuke the crap out of them if they started a nuclear war. Poland, imo, is the least of their problems. Our capabilities are so advanced, land bases have become less important except for proximity purposes. Also, the article didn't mention NATO once to my knowledge, making the standoff mostly between Russia and the US, somewhat showing how the Russians aren't as interested in NATO as they are in US military strength.
This wasn't nukes in poland it was a defence grid. It was supposed to shoot down incoming missles. Your latest president backed down when he came into power. Nuke the crap out of em eh? Interesting choice of words considering they've got the largest supply of nukes in the world. There the last people you want to be firing a nuclear bomb at!
Poland is apart of NATO. Poland had agreed to allow you to place missles in there country to defend yourselves and every other NATO country from future attacks.. It's a NATO missle defence grid. Russia naturally gets angry over that not because America has nukes that it can fire at it - America has always had that and it's always been a stand off because Russia can fire a **** lot more back at you. Suddenly you've got all these allies helping you out and giving you a huge tactical and military advantage over them.
Course all that is jip now because the country that Russia fears so much backed off. Which leads me back to a previous question i raised; Will America come through for US and live up to THERE end of the deal when push comes to shove? Will they stick by NATO? Naturally them backing out was looked upon poorly by a lot of people and pretty much answers that question i think.
Which leads me to wonder if we're better off with Russia in NATO and not America. Both as slippery as each other tho i suspect. It's a pity theres Europe between you. I'd prefer it if you was next to each other i think this dispute would of ended long long ago.
NATO is needed. It's a good step in the right direction for unity across the planet. A defence grid sheilding America and Europe from outside attack would of been an incredible step forward and perhaps will happen in the future if terms can be agreed. If you can't see the point in that then i give up you wont see reason.
My mistake. A missile defense grid. The one thing you aren't seeming to grasp is the destructive power one nuke has. Nuclear weapons have the capability to wipe out entire cities. It is frankley irrelevant how many nukes Russia or we have at this point. The fact of the matter is, we have enough nukes combined to destroy the world roughly 50 times over. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Russia and the US have the exact same number of nukes at around 2200. With the last arms treaty, that number is supposed to be reduced to 1500. There are some loopholes in that and some things not covered by the treaty, but on the whole, the nuclear ***** of both countries should be roughly equal. That aside, it doesn't take that mane nuclear weapons to destroy an entire country like Russia.
And again, it's not necessarily that NATO has military strength, but that the proximity of those countries is threatening to Russia. Russia is not that close to the US (except for Alaska which isn't that great of an invasion or attacking point). The fact we can have bases and troops close to Russia is what frustrates them. Still, land bases are not as key as naval and aerial superiority.
Of course, the US does come under question as to what they will do when pressured. I believe that in order for the US to respond to moves by Russia, the consequences and event have to be dire. With the Cuban Missile Crisis, you can see that even at extremes, the US kept calm for the most part and forced the Soviets to back off. With that in mind, I believe it would take a lot in order for the US to act with most or all of it's capabilities. By then, it would be a very critical situation.
And it's not that Europe is necessarily in between. Both countries could just as easily launch missiles over the arctic circle or over Alaska. The thing about NATO was that the Soviets had their eye set on expanding into Europe, esp. after WWII. We had to form NATO immediately to show the backing the US would offer to Europe in case of Soviet invasion.
Your last statement is somewhat confusing. First off, shouldn't the UN be dealing with global unity, not NATO? How would a defense grid provide for global unity and/or peace? Seems like the Russians would never be satisfied to let that happen. Someone would always get the short end of the stick in that type of deal. I can see global unity would be nice and all, but the means to achieving it are flawed from your perspective. I don't think NATO is the entity that should be driving towards global unity. That's what the UN is for. And if the UN is there for that purpose, then what does that do to your reason for why NATO should continue to exist?
)
