Worst nation leader

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2008-01-04 10:37pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:But one wonders about the repercussions for our NATO allies who were in range of Soviet IRBMs, and more to the point about the desirability of killing millions of Soviet citizens as a first resort in a crisis.

I always loved the part where Tommy Powers showed an attack plan to McNamara which showed Albania completely blanketed in thermonuclear initations. All because ALbania had a really huge high powered radar which was integral to Soviet air defenses; and had to be taken out with high priority to let SAC bombers into the USSR.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-01-04 10:40pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Riiiight. Because it would have been loads better to kill millions of people in one stroke.
Reading comprehension problems?

Yours, it appears.

He said:

The whole Cuban Missile Crisis thing wouldn't have been a crisis had he just went through with the air strikes once we knew about the damn missiles. All the Soviets could do is bitch and moan on the floor of the UN, if they were stupid enough to go to war....

It's entirely in the Soviets' ball whether they want to get glassed or not.

He also said:

USSR: 1917-1962, obliterated by an overwhelming nuclear strike by the US whom only received an underwhelming and disappointingly pathetic response in return.

And what about those nukes which were there which we did not know about at the time of the crisis?

Besides which, no overt act of aggression had been committed. On what basis do you justify attacking a country which you are not at war with and where no casus belli exists?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-01-05 12:04am

It's between Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il, IMO... provided that we're talking about modern leaders. Historically? I'd have to think about it.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2008-01-05 08:46am

FedRebel wrote:USSR: 1917-1962, obliterated by an overwhelming nuclear strike by the US whom only received an underwhelming and disappointingly pathetic response in return.

Aside from the issues with this other people have pointed out, if it had worked then communism would never have been discredited to the extent that it was in reality. There would be ten times as many radical communist nutjobs trying to nationalise everything (which would be a big problem in Europe, merely annoying in the US at it has a negligable number of them to start with).

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-01-06 07:13pm

toss up between Mad Mugabe and "Son of Kim"

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2008-01-07 02:12am

MKSheppard wrote:It's entirely in the Soviets' ball whether they want to get glassed or not.

"Comrade Kruschev; the USAF just bombed our IRBM sites in Cuba!; what are we going to do?"

What would US have done if the USSR had destroyed the Turkish sites?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-01-07 02:24am

I would argue the other way for JFK; that he was too much of a hardline anti-Communist "cold warrior".

That said, he's far from "worst nation leader evar".

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-01-07 01:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:It's entirely in the Soviets' ball whether they want to get glassed or not.

"Comrade Kruschev; the USAF just bombed our IRBM sites in Cuba!; what are we going to do?"

"We take Berlin. The fuckers won't know what hit them, and Berlin is surrounded by our great and mighty Red Army. We already own part of it."

This was Kennedy's reason for not taking out Cuba -- what, you think the Soviets would have bat an eye when they were willing to starve Berlin to death? Fine line between starvation and an actual attack.

It even makes the Soviets look like the good guys: they take a city when America takes a country, Berlin worth far more to America than a piece of shit island in the middle of nowhere to the USSR.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-07 03:45pm

Didn't Ehud Olmert have a zero approval rating last year? When I was in Jerusalem (Ace:tag!) I was told that his rating went up from 2% to 20% when he was dignosed with cancer - which means that his tumor is nine times as popular as him.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-01-07 03:55pm

Berlin worth far more to America than a piece of shit island in the middle of nowhere to the USSR

Indeed. Berlin has shitloads of infrastructure and NATO intelligence information stored.

The situation would anyway escalate quickly into WWIII, IMHO, and it won't be "NUKE AMERICA NOW!" cries but rather the exact opposite - the US would need to react to Soviet response either in Europe or Turkey, which could turn into a large Soviet-NATO war very quickly.