Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Socialism is less a bogeyman than it was- thank Bernie Sanders' campaign for that. Also, demographic changes. The generations that grew to adulthood during the Cold War are gradually being overtaken by the generations that grew up after it.

Single payer is even starting to garner some Republican support (from voters, not politicians). Barring the complete collapse of the United States (which is admittedly possible), that fight will be won sooner or later.

[Flagg]

"Trillion dollar" is hyperbole; "boondoggle" is flat wrong. The technology works. It has worked for forty years if not more. It is not a waste of money, it is not a 'turd' in need of polishing. It always worked to one level of reliability or another, generation after generation of anti-missile missile has been designed, built, and tested with increasing degrees of success. It is simply a matter of the will to build the system, and the desire to do so.

Well, triumph of the will, then.

I'd respond to this, but I can't parse it to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Could you clarify?

When a country with nuclear weapons can obliterate another country with nuclear weapons without having to suffer reprisals in the form of nuclear fire, don't you think they will be more likely to do so?

It depends on the country and the circumstances. The answer is not 'duh yes' as you seem to think. Nor is the answer 'duh no.' The answer can be any of the following:

1) Yes
2) Mu, because the odds are zero percent either way
3) Mu, because this country is so shambolic they're likely to blunder into a nuclear war by accident.

In particular, options 2 and 3 are relevant and I'm not sure you really considered them. Now, that's my response to the question you actually asked. If you're trying to bait me into agreeing with some thesis of yours, kindly state that thesis so that it can be addressed on its merits.

It SOUNDS like you're sort of indirectly passive-aggressively trying to argue that the only effect of ABM would be to make the US more inclined to launch nuclear first strikes on countries with small arsenals. This is basically you flat-out ignoring everything I said, so I'm irritated by it... But I may be misunderstanding, or you may have just not gotten around to explaining the nuances of why you think everything I've been saying for days is so irrelevant as to not merit being directly addressed. Or, again, I may be misunderstanding.

Would you mind expanding on your views?

My views are that ABM significantly increases the chances of a one sided nuclear war against <insert evil empire here> by the American Empire. My view is that MAD (because we all go a little sometimes) has worked for 60 years. My view is that there should be global nuclear disarmament, but since that won't happen, if we can have nukes, everyone else can, too.

[Simon_Jester]

See, you're totally ignoring a critically important fact. If the US has confronted countless random countries all over the world that lacked nuclear weapons. Including countries no one else was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq). With the sole exception of the utterly unique conditions of the end of the Second World War, the US has not launched a nuclear first strike. Your concern that the US is suddenly going to do this could be based on a lot of things, but one thing it isn't based on is facts.

...

Furthermore, the "if we can have nukes, everyone else can, too" argument ignores something critical: IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. Other countries don't just deal with us in these unilateral "big bad American bully" relationships. They also have to deal with each other. The risks of nuclear war increase exponentially as nuclear weapons proliferate, for a host of reasons. Reasons that have nothing to do with America. Reasons that I already addressed and that you ignored, except to (more or less) restate your position without bothering to substantiate it.

This is starting to turn into 'wall of ignorance' tactics.

[Flagg]

See, you're totally ignoring a critically important fact. If the US has confronted countless random countries all over the world that lacked nuclear weapons. Including countries no one else was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq). With the sole exception of the utterly unique conditions of the end of the Second World War, the US has not launched a nuclear first strike. Your concern that the US is suddenly going to do this could be based on a lot of things, but one thing it isn't based on is facts.

...

Furthermore, the "if we can have nukes, everyone else can, too" argument ignores something critical: IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. Other countries don't just deal with us in these unilateral "big bad American bully" relationships. They also have to deal with each other. The risks of nuclear war increase exponentially as nuclear weapons proliferate, for a host of reasons. Reasons that have nothing to do with America. Reasons that I already addressed and that you ignored, except to (more or less) restate your position without bothering to substantiate it.

This is starting to turn into 'wall of ignorance' tactics.

Did you miss the part where I said the best solution is "no nukes for all"? And frankly, I have zero faith that the US would not launch a first strike. There was serious talk by Bush II of using "tactical" nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's underground nuclear research facilities. And since it kind of IS all about the US since we're the ones developing ABM systems and putting them in countries like Poland (because Iran and NK are totally going to nuke Poland, right? It was totally not being put there to defend against Russia, right?) it's seen as an act of aggression by other nuclear powers. Because it is.

And just because I don't engage in the tedious bullshit verbal garbage war of attrition that is your trademark doesn't mean I've ignored it. It just means I see it of zero consequence.

[Simon_Jester]

Did you miss the part where I said the best solution is "no nukes for all"? And frankly, I have zero faith that the US would not launch a first strike. There was serious talk by Bush II of using "tactical" nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's underground nuclear research facilities.

And it was not done, nor did it ever get past the point of some rambling among presidential advisors. "Serious talk" encompasses a lot of stuff that never happens precisely because of how massively stupid it would be and how little support there would be for it among the public, the military, or the political establishment.

I'm honestly not even going to ask you to believe "the US would never launch a nuclear first strike."

My point is that it's incredibly blind to choose to believe that "US nuclear first strikes and US fuckups" are somehow the only kind of nuclear weapons use that can even happen. Other countries can have fuckups and shitty politicians too. Other countries can think it's a great idea to threaten someone who isn't in a position to fight back.

I find it intensely frustrating that my fellow left-wing people so often get so fixated on the shittiness of one thing (American politics) that they start completely neglecting all the other kinds of shittiness that exist in the world.

It reminds me of some of the essays George Orwell (a British communist) wrote about his fellow British communists and the generally crazy way they reacted to the events of the 1930s- because they were so busy being anticapitalist and anti-British that they forgot to be anti-Nazi and anti-Stalinist-purges. I'm tempted to quote-spam those in spoilers or something, because they're good reading and make useful cautionary tales.

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/index_en

There's an index, for starters. That way I'm not going massively off-topic and rambling.

And since it kind of IS all about the US since we're the ones developing ABM systems and putting them in countries like Poland (because Iran and NK are totally going to nuke Poland, right? It was totally not being put there to defend against Russia, right?) it's seen as an act of aggression by other nuclear powers. Because it is.

You're dodging the point again.

There are a huge number of policy and international relations questions that don't reduce to "well, what is the US going to do?" There are countries with aspirations to conquer their neighbors or turn them into puppets. There are disputes over territory, resources, and ideology. There are factions in many countries that are radically opposed to the current international order, and would remain totally opposed even if the US suddenly spontaneously sank into the ocean overnight.

Hand everyone nukes, and a large number of these disputes, factional fights, and ambitions to conquer would have the potential to go nuclear. Even if no one nation was stupidcrazy enough to launch a premeditated nuclear first strike, someone's missile warning radar could fart and throw off an unwanted red alert. Or some general could decide Doctor Strangelove was a how-to guide and not a dark comedy. Or someone could become convinced they were in terrible danger and shoot first thinking they must shoot first. And the odds of all this happening increase exponentially when there are many nuclear powers involved and they don't all organize neatly into a couple of big blocs that can easily monitor each other.

Mutually assured destruction sort of works when there are only two parties involved. Or maybe three. Some small, manageable number, where you can always predict where the first shot is going to come from, and prepare against it.

It doesn't scale up to a world where everyone has nukes. At that point it's not like two people with guns aimed at each other's heads- a situation which is at least stable, if not desirable. It's like a huge park at night full of random gangsters and thugs, some of whom are probably high, and all of whom are armed. It only takes one person who thinks they have reason to pull a trigger, or one car randomly backfiring or something, for the whole place to turn into a free-fire zone.

And just because I don't engage in the tedious bullshit verbal garbage war of attrition that is your trademark doesn't mean I've ignored it. It just means I see it of zero consequence.

So in other words, "too long, didn't read" is your main supporting argument for your arguments. Do I have that right? Because I can be assed to explain myself, you don't have to and can just casually ignore everything I say in favor of repeating the fact that you disagree?

[Patroklos]

And since it kind of IS all about the US since we're the ones developing ABM systems and putting them in countries like Poland (because Iran and NK are totally going to nuke Poland, right?. It was totally not being put there to defend against Russia, right?).

You can't possibly be this stupid...

[Simon_Jester]

You just watch him.

Now, I think I may know what you're getting at here. Would it happen to be the part where the great circle route from Iran to much of the United States passes over Poland?

[To translate this- if you fire a ballistic missile from Iran and aim it at the United States, then unless you plan to have your missile fly around the world the long way and hit from the opposite direction, your missile will be passing over Eastern Europe]

EDIT:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=IKA-BWI

This is a link to an airline great circle route plotter. It is showing the shortest path from Tehran to Washington, D.C., as projected on a map of the world. Note that the path arcs up towards the arctic circle, rather than flying along a constant line of latitude.

EDIT #2:

Note that anti-ballistic missiles in Poland are useless for defending the US against Russian missiles, because Russian missiles fired at the US would go straight over the North Pole. They would be effective at defending parts of Europe from short-range missiles fired from parts of Russia. But that wouldn't do the US a lot of good, if the US were getting involved in a nuclear war with Russia by using its ABM in Poland to engage Russian missiles headed for other parts of Europe.

If we really wanted to defend against Russian missiles, we'd put the defense missiles in Canada and the northern tier of the United States. This is exactly where the US did put its warning radars (and prototype ABM sites) back during the Cold War.

[Thanas]

Note that anti-ballistic missiles in Poland are useless for defending the US against Russian missiles, because Russian missiles fired at the US would go straight over the North Pole. They would be effective at defending parts of Europe from short-range missiles fired from parts of Russia. But that wouldn't do the US a lot of good, if the US were getting involved in a nuclear war with Russia by using its ABM in Poland to engage Russian missiles headed for other parts of Europe.

The missile base in Poland was sold in Europe as a shield against any kind of nuclear attack, including Russia. Its location in Poland, a nation that has been (with some justification) been highly confrontational towards Russia, meant that it was widely interpreted as shielding poland from midrange Russian missiles. Now Nato and the US has always denied this, but perception of the move always differed.

And while it would not protect the US from russian missiles, it would protect the US nuclear arsenal in European countries against a Russian strike as well as protect European allies with their own arsenal of nukes.

I completely agree with you that the US has consistently maintained that it is not for defence against Russia - but I also have no doubt that the system could be repurposed against a Russian nuclear threat to Europe. So in essence, while it is not protecting the USA directly, it is protecting part of the US nuclear arsenal and of course allies of the US.

That being said, I do think the risk of the US glassing Russia anytime soon is non-existent, simply because it would wreck europe and china and thus the USA as well.

[Patroklos]

It works for Iran to the US, but honestly given current capabilities of Iran that is only a tangential benefit. The concern is for our European allies and our own bases in Europe. If you do a great ciricle to Oslo the Poland site is well suited to defend the Northern European flight paths without leaving a gap in Central Europe.

There is simply no way to defend all of Europe with just one site given the range of the SM-3. The Romanian site covers southern Europe, Poland covers northern Europe, and they both provide cover in the middle where, lets face it, the most lucrative targets are located providing redundancy.

As to the Russia question as you stated as a defense of the US they are useless as they will just shoot over the poles. But this also applies to Europe as well as there are plenty of launch sides in Russia that would shoot through the Arctic into Western Europe without getting close to the Poland ABM envelope. Not only that, Russia has the ability to use conventional cruise missiles to deliver nukes as well, something an anti BALLISTIC missile is useless against. Then there is Kaliningrad, which is so close to the envelope an interception is basically impossible with they current interceptors in use.

There is also the fact that Russia has SSBNs, which means any limited geographic ABM system is worse than useless against a Russian nuclear threat.

But it goes well beyond that. The scale of ABM deployment makes them useless against Russia. I can think of no scenario where it makes sense for Russia to shoot one nuclear missile, or any salvo size that would not immediately overwhelm current ABM assets even if they intentionally shot all of them through our ABM envelope and we had a 100% interception rate. The site in Romania, if they build any redundancy into their counter fire at all, has the warshots for maybe six interceptions.

The only objection Russia has that is in anyway valid is that having the technology developed on a small scale means it could potentially be implemented on a large scale. Which is all well and dandy, EXCEPT that since people like the Chinese are busy developing ballistic missiles for increasingly more threatening tactical uses there is no choice but to develop countermeasures for those non-nuclear defense purposes. Hence why the USN is leading the way in fieldable systems (the Romanian site is a Navy derivative).

Russia is just fear mongering, and those predisposed to be mongered are thus.

EDIT:

Poland was chosen because as a new NATO member not following the mid 2000s trend of neglecting is military spending it was predisposed to allow the US to place its missile base there. Poland was all about, and largely still is, US military investment in their country. Also, it is located in the frontier of Europe but still has a one nation buffer with Russia for signaling purposes (same with Romania. Most importantly though Poland didn't give a shit about any of Russians PR bullshit, in fact they welcomed the opportunity to poke Russia in the eye. Actual defense against Russia is a cool publicity bullent, but as stated above nobody in Poland (or anywhere in Europe) that knows what they are talking about has any illusions the limited capability of what is or was planned to be deployed would have any chance of defending them from Russia.

[Flagg]

Note that anti-ballistic missiles in Poland are useless for defending the US against Russian missiles, because Russian missiles fired at the US would go straight over the North Pole. They would be effective at defending parts of Europe from short-range missiles fired from parts of Russia. But that wouldn't do the US a lot of good, if the US were getting involved in a nuclear war with Russia by using its ABM in Poland to engage Russian missiles headed for other parts of Europe.

The missile base in Poland was sold in Europe as a shield against any kind of nuclear attack, including Russia. Its location in Poland, a nation that has been (with some justification) been highly confrontational towards Russia, meant that it was widely interpreted as shielding poland from midrange Russian missiles. Now Nato and the US has always denied this, but perception of the move always differed.

And while it would not protect the US from russian missiles, it would protect the US nuclear arsenal in European countries against a Russian strike as well as protect European allies with their own arsenal of nukes.

I completely agree with you that the US has consistently maintained that it is not for defence against Russia - but I also have no doubt that the system could be repurposed against a Russian nuclear threat to Europe. So in essence, while it is not protecting the USA directly, it is protecting part of the US nuclear arsenal and of course allies of the US.

That being said, I do think the risk of the US glassing Russia anytime soon is non-existent, simply because it would wreck europe and china and thus the USA as well.

Oh my god, a reasonable non-obtuse response. It must be fucking Christmas.


Now Simple Simon and Patroklos:
My entire argument has been that missile "defense" is really offense. And to suggest that a nation which has engaged in a war of aggression (oh I'm sorry, "regime change") and violated sovereign soil to engage in a hit on an evildoer wouldn't use nuclear missiles against a country with a small nuclear arsenal if that country could not respond in kind is naive at best and fucking delusional at worst.

And I read your usual bullshit, Simon. Like I said, I'm not playing the word war of attrition with you. You call it a wall of ignorance paying zero fucking heed to the reality of the world. The threat of nuclear weapons even being used in the near future is likely NK detonating one on their own soil killing tens of thousands of American troops should the foaming at the mouth rapist in the Whitehouse decide to invade so he can masturbate while tweeting.

Now, I await your "but, but, but..." 12 page response.

[Patroklos]

My entire argument has been that missile "defense" is really offense. And to suggest that a nation which has engaged in a war of aggression (oh I'm sorry, "regime change") and violated sovereign soil to engage in a hit on an evildoer wouldn't use nuclear missiles against a country with a small nuclear arsenal if that country could not respond in kind is naive at best and fucking delusional at worst.

Then why hasn't this happened? Through the various characters of administrations, through the ebb and flow of global security circumstances running the gambit of titans locked in a death stare to an unrivaled global hegemon to everything in between, why has what you stipulate as basically inevitable not happened in the near 80 years of nuclear arsenal wielding?

But that actually wasn't what I commented on. I commented on whether you actually believe Poland is not a good place for a missile site defending against Iran, and if you actually believe the intent of these sites is to stop a Russian nuclear strike. You indicated you believe both of these things.

[Flagg]

My entire argument has been that missile "defense" is really offense. And to suggest that a nation which has engaged in a war of aggression (oh I'm sorry, "regime change") and violated sovereign soil to engage in a hit on an evildoer wouldn't use nuclear missiles against a country with a small nuclear arsenal if that country could not respond in kind is naive at best and fucking delusional at worst.

Then why hasn't this happened? Through the various characters of administrations, through the ebb and flow of global security circumstances running the gambit of titans locked in a death stare to an unrivaled global hegemon to everything in between, why has what you stipulate as basically inevitable not happened in the near 80 years of nuclear arsenal wielding?

But that actually wasn't what I commented on. I commented on whether you actually believe Poland is not a good place for a missile site defending against Iran, and if you actually believe the intent of these sites is to stop a Russian nuclear strike. You indicated you believe both of these things.

It hasn't happened because of Mutually Assured Destruction you dolt. And Poland is a bad place to put ABM because, as Thanas said, it's provocative to Russia. Whether it's to prevent Russian nukes from turning central and Western Europe into dust or not (this is where your and Simons dumbassedness comes in) it sends a message that that is why it's put there. It also shows that you and Simon assume that Iran is run by suicidal nutjobs who would actually launch a nuke knowing full well that Farsi would become a dead language.

[Patroklos]

It hasn't happened because of Mutually Assured Destruction you dolt.

Except that certainly not the case since 1990, and maybe even before that. If we nuked Iran in 2005 Russia wasn't going to start WWIII over it. Would you care to postulate otherwise?

And Poland is a bad place to put ABM because, as Thanas said, it's provocative to Russia.

Yet that wasn't the gist of your original statement, which was that their location made them obviously not about Iran but rather ploy to twart the Russians physically. Not politically. I see you are tempted to squirm away, but Thanas didn't actually give you out. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, which answers my original question...

Whether it's to prevent Russian nukes from turning central and Western Europe into dust or not (this is where your and Simons dumbassedness comes in) it sends a message that that is why it's put there.

No, it doesn't. Its a stupid place to put them if that was the message we wanted to send. The message it sends via both their placement and the number of them is that it is explicitly NOT there to prevent the Russians from doing anything. This line of argument is to ascertain whether you are as gullible as the Russians obviously think you and so many others are.

Now, if and additional site had been placed in Norway THAT would have sent the message you are imagining.

It also shows that you and Simon assume that Iran is run by suicidal nutjobs who would actually launch a nuke knowing full well that Farsi would become a dead language.

I am pretty confident I will never be in a fatal car crash. The math tells me I can drive my entire life without a seatbelt and have nothing to worry about. The criticality of the ristk, however, dictates that I take precautions against the infinitesimal chance of the occurrence. Airbags, seatbelts, the whole works.

Additionally, as your susceptibility to Russian fearmongering shows public perception tends to ascribe outsized concern to particular categories of risk. Theocracies with nukes being one of them. People care about how and why things happen to them, not just what happens to them.

[Flagg]

It hasn't happened because of Mutually Assured Destruction you dolt.

Except that certainly not the case since 1990, and maybe even before that. If we nuked Iran in 2005 Russia wasn't going to start WWIII over it. Would you care to postulate otherwise?

And Poland is a bad place to put ABM because, as Thanas said, it's provocative to Russia.

Yet that wasn't the gist of your original statement, which was that their location made them obviously not about Iran but rather ploy to twart the Russians physically. Not politically. I see you are tempted to squirm away, but Thanas didn't actually give you out. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, which answers my original question...

Whether it's to prevent Russian nukes from turning central and Western Europe into dust or not (this is where your and Simons dumbassedness comes in) it sends a message that that is why it's put there.

No, it doesn't. Its a stupid place to put them if that was the message we wanted to send. The message it sends via both their placement and the number of them is that it is explicitly NOT there to prevent the Russians from doing anything. This line of argument is to ascertain whether you are as gullible as the Russians obviously think you and so many others are.

Now, if and additional site had been placed in Norway THAT would have sent the message you are imagining.

It also shows that you and Simon assume that Iran is run by suicidal nutjobs who would actually launch a nuke knowing full well that Farsi would become a dead language.

I am pretty confident I will never be in a fatal car crash. The math tells me I can drive my entire life without a seatbelt and have nothing to worry about. The criticality of the ristk, however, dictates that I take precautions against the infinitesimal chance of the occurrence. Airbags, seatbelts, the whole works.

Additionally, as your susceptibility to Russian fearmongering shows public perception tends to ascribe outsized concern to particular categories of risk. Theocracies with nukes being one of them. People care about how and why things happen to them, not just what happens to them.

Russian fearmongering? Watch your talking point creep.

[Patroklos]

That was my original talking point, specifically you believing it, so.....

[Flagg]

That was my original talking point, specifically you believing it, so.....

Well, you were wrong. But don't let that stop you, it never has.

I love the implied racism of Iran being full of foaming at the mouth theocratic nutjobs using nuclear weapons, btw. You're more likely to die in your car crash scenario with all the safety measures taken than you are of dying in nuclear fire, too. But keep it coming. The laughing hurts, but it's worth it to see you and poor Simon chugging the Military Industrial Complex's cock like it's Gatorade and you just ran a marathon.

[Patroklos]

Racist, oh my! As you continue to flail around from one unsuccessful redirect to another entrenching your reputation for willful stupidity, reflect that this all stems from you being Putin's cock holster, swallowing his line hook line and balls.

[Flagg]

Racist, oh my! As you continue to flail around from one unsuccessful redirect to another entrenching your reputation for willful stupidity, reflect that this all stems from you being Putin's cock holster, swallowing his line hook line and balls.

You are so pathetically sad, trying to bait me into a situation where you cause me to respond to your impotent insults in a manner so that you can run to a moderator and try to get me spanked. It's truly funny. Go back under your bridge. And don't steal the lines I steal from Colbert.

[Patroklos]

A moderator? I have completely owned you on both substance and insult in this thread. You can't even compete on blowjob metaphors. I want no interferiance, though I suppose you will get a mercy intervention soon the way you are digging.

As to baiting you to respond embarrassingly, the results are self evident. As per usual you see the danger but like other small stupid mammals you can't help yourself. You have no powers here, Trumpian.

[Flagg]

A moderator? I have completely owned you on both substance and insult in this thread. You can't even compete on blowjob metaphors. I want no interferiance, though I suppose you will get a mercy intervention soon the way you are digging.

As to baiting you to respond embarrassingly, the results are self evident. As per usual you see the danger but like other small stupid mammals you can't help yourself. You have no powers here, Trumpian.

I'm not the one throwing around completely content free ad hominems. Frankly you're embarrassing yourself. So by all means continue, but I won't take part in your tantrum.

[Patroklos]

Oh yeah, all that "content"

Please tell me more...

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, I'm with Patroklos on this one, Flagg. I gave you content- insult-free content, even. You replied with "too long didn't read" and "duhhhhh." At that point, if you don't want to be insulted, find another forum.

---

Now, Thanas took me seriously and made intelligent comments which deserve response, so I am very much responding to him.

Note that anti-ballistic missiles in Poland are useless for defending the US against Russian missiles, because Russian missiles fired at the US would go straight over the North Pole. They would be effective at defending parts of Europe from short-range missiles fired from parts of Russia. But that wouldn't do the US a lot of good, if the US were getting involved in a nuclear war with Russia by using its ABM in Poland to engage Russian missiles headed for other parts of Europe.

The missile base in Poland was sold in Europe as a shield against any kind of nuclear attack, including Russia. Its location in Poland, a nation that has been (with some justification) been highly confrontational towards Russia, meant that it was widely interpreted as shielding poland from midrange Russian missiles. Now Nato and the US has always denied this, but perception of the move always differed.

As Patroklos pointed out, the defenses aren't numerous enough to shoot down a plausible-sized Russian attack, and the Russians have many ways to bypass the defense entirely by firing missiles from different directions or by using other kinds of weapons instead of just ballistic missiles. Furthermore, the SM-3 sites in Poland aren't even in the right place to shield much of Europe from ballistic missile attack, as those missiles could very easily come in over Scandinavia.

As a defense against Russia, SM-3 sites in Poland are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

I suppose that if one Russian missile were fired, the defenses might shoot it down. But if the Russians fire only one missile, it's probably an accident. And in that case, they'd probably be just as relieved as anyone else, if the accidental missile were shot down without getting squashed by mass nuclear retaliation.

If European politicians sold European citizens on the value of that SM-3 base as a meaningful defense against a deliberate Russian attack, then those European politicians were lying to those European citizens. Or at least lulling them into a false sense of security. I'm sorry that happened, but it doesn't represent a logical interpretation of US actions- or Polish actions.

And while it would not protect the US from russian missiles, it would protect the US nuclear arsenal in European countries against a Russian strike as well as protect European allies with their own arsenal of nukes.

I completely agree with you that the US has consistently maintained that it is not for defence against Russia - but I also have no doubt that the system could be repurposed against a Russian nuclear threat to Europe. So in essence, while it is not protecting the USA directly, it is protecting part of the US nuclear arsenal and of course allies of the US.

It might shoot down five or ten missiles, I suppose. Shame about the other ninety or ninety-five that bypassed or overwhelmed it, though.

SM-3 sites in Poland do not meaningfully "defend" anything in Europe against the Russian nuclear arsenal, for the same reason a sand castle does not "defend" against the tide. It does, however, have a good chance of defending Europe against the Iranian nuclear arsenal, which would be much smaller in number, and which would be fired from a smaller set of locations so that it's easier to anticipate and block the attack.

That being said, I do think the risk of the US glassing Russia anytime soon is non-existent, simply because it would wreck europe and china and thus the USA as well.

[/quote]It would also wreck the US directly, becuase the Russians would shoot back- very effectively.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I'm with Patroklos on this one, Flagg. I gave you content- insult-free content, even. You replied with "too long didn't read" and "duhhhhh." At that point, if you don't want to be insulted, find another forum.

You agree that I'm a Trump supporter who sucks Vladimir Putin's dick?

You gave me content, Simon. Your psychopath cohort in this thread decided to associate me with a fucking rapist without actually doing anything else.

I read what you wrote, I just chose not to engage you in your paragraph war of attrition. I don't have a problem being insulted if there's content behind it, but if you look at the posts above you will see content free insults stating that I'm a supporter of a rapist. That crosses the line. That's why I won't respond to that piece of shit because I take that personally and if you know anything about me you know why. It's not that I can't take it, it's that the appropriate response to such a depraved statement cannot occur digitally.

The issue is that my view on ABM is subjective, not objective which is obvious if you bothered reading what I wrote in the context it was written. I'm as against Russia, China, India, and every other country on the face of this planet that possesses nuclear weapons having ABM for the exact same reason I'm against the US having one.

Anything that gives a world leader a feeling of safety from reprisals in kind from launching nuclear weapons is bad. Do you disagree? If so, why? What moral justification can you find in a system that ends MAD, a situation that has arguably prevented nuclear war for about as long as humanity has possessed atomic bombs?

What justification can you find in Uncle Sam swinging his dick around denying countries that we dislike from having nuclear weapons? Put yourself in Irans shoes for instance if you have the slightest bit of imagination. To the west they have Iraq, a mess of a country that attacked them with chemical weapons in a decade long war, to the east Afghanistan, essentially under US occupation, and Pakistan which possesses nuclear weapons of their own. Does it not make sense for them to want to prevent invasion by acquiring the ultimate "don't tread on me" weapon?

And why exactly do we need a system to prevent Iran from nuking the United States? Do you agree with your scumbag friend that Irans leadership would do something that would guarantee their obliteration? If so, why?

These are subjective issues, not objective ones.

And I'm not going anywhere as long as I have a say. And I was here first.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay. I'll address content first, the 'I was insulted' stuff second.

The issue is that my view on ABM is subjective, not objective which is obvious if you bothered reading what I wrote in the context it was written. I'm as against Russia, China, India, and every other country on the face of this planet that possesses nuclear weapons having ABM for the exact same reason I'm against the US having one.

If your views are subjective, does that mean that the facts are irrelevant to your opinion?

If so, then you have no right to expect to be taken seriously.

If not, then your unwillingness to engage in a facts-based discussion doesn't paint you in a good light.

Anything that gives a world leader a feeling of safety from reprisals in kind from launching nuclear weapons is bad. Do you disagree? If so, why? What moral justification can you find in a system that ends MAD, a situation that has arguably prevented nuclear war for about as long as humanity has possessed atomic bombs?

Because MAD is hideously vulnerable to accidents and the unexpected. And MAD becomes totally unsustainable, as the number of 'sides' that have the power to assuredly destroy each other increases. Two big alliances can play the MAD game in reasonable safety. Forty little countries cannot.

I would much rather live in a world where ballistic missiles were effectively neutered by everyone having effective defenses to stop them with, than in a world where everyone lives in fear of total species extinction as soon as some idiot's finger slips on a button. Especially when there are a growing number of idiots, many of them with increasingly slippery fingers, and a growing number of buttons.

What justification can you find in Uncle Sam swinging his dick around denying countries that we dislike from having nuclear weapons? Put yourself in Irans shoes for instance if you have the slightest bit of imagination. To the west they have Iraq, a mess of a country that attacked them with chemical weapons in a decade long war, to the east Afghanistan, essentially under US occupation, and Pakistan which possesses nuclear weapons of their own. Does it not make sense for them to want to prevent invasion by acquiring the ultimate "don't tread on me" weapon?

It would make sense for them to desire to do so.

It would also make sense for them to try and assert some control over the chaos and hostility on their borders by conquering or puppetizing parts of the surrounding countries. At which point their nuclear arsenal stops becoming a pure defense of Iran, and becomes a threat to others. Even if they don't launch a nuclear attack themselves, they still have the option of saying "outside countries, do not interfere in our conquest of this other country, or we will launch a nuclear attack against you." Yes, if they actually launch that attack the US can hit back and ruin all of Iran... but that still doesn't make it a good idea for us to call their bluff. Having the means to counter that threat and say "you can nuke our troops as they approach you, but you cannot nuke the millions of random innocent people back home" becomes desirable.

If Iran wants a nuclear arsenal to deter an invasion, realistically all they need is the ability to fire that arsenal at the army and fleet bases attacking them directly. The US would not so cheerfully attack someone who can vaporize fifty billion dollars worth of planes and warships and tens of thousands of ground troops in the opening day of a war. The US bullies countries because they cannot hit hard in open warfare, and any nuclear arsenal takes care of that need.

And why exactly do we need a system to prevent Iran from nuking the United States? Do you agree with your scumbag friend that Irans leadership would do something that would guarantee their obliteration? If so, why?

I do not know what Iran might do, or threaten to do. I plan for capabilities, not for intentions. For that matter, how can we even know if Iran's government will remain stable indefinitely? Power struggles happen. Iran has a particularly fragmented sort of government with multiple independent internal power structures. Even if the people on top of the Iranian state are rational actors, that doesn't mean every powerful man in Iran is a rational actor.

I'm not worried about a frothing fanatic at the top of Iran's totem pole. I'm worried about the Iranian equivalent of General Ripper obsessing over the international materialist conspiracy to sap and impurify his bodily fluids.

These are subjective issues, not objective ones.

Again, by that do you mean "immune to facts," or what? These are exactly the same topics people have been discussing since the start of the nuclear age- I suggest reading On Thermonuclear War, by Herman Kahn, as a place to start if you want to understand this. It doesn't require any particular technical knowledge and is very informative, both about the history of nuclear war theory, and about the present day. Because while a lot of Kahn's predictions didn't come true when he thought they would, they're now in the process of coming true today.

---

Yeah, I'm with Patroklos on this one, Flagg. I gave you content- insult-free content, even. You replied with "too long didn't read" and "duhhhhh." At that point, if you don't want to be insulted, find another forum.

You agree that I'm a Trump supporter who sucks Vladimir Putin's dick?

No, I agree that you basically gave up a right to complain about whether or not the insults directed at you were "zero content" when you made it clear you didn't actually care what the content of other people's posts was.

The way I see it, your right to complain about the insults themselves is exactly where it would have stood otherwise- if the insults have in fact crossed the lines commonly accepted on this forum.

You gave me content, Simon. Your psychopath cohort in this thread decided to associate me with a fucking rapist without actually doing anything else.

I read what you wrote, I just chose not to engage you in your paragraph war of attrition.

Translation: you have no response to my arguments, your views are apparently unchanged by facts like "the SM-3 sites in Poland are useless for actually stopping a real Russian attack" and "the shape of the Earth makes Poland a good place to shoot from if you're trying to stop Iranian missiles from hitting, say, London or Washington D.C."

See, if you view it as some kind of pointless 'war of attrition' when your debating partner uses a big pile of facts and reasoning, and just restate your earlier opinion while sneering at the fact that he bothered to use facts and reasoning... Yeah, that's pretty crappy debating tactics right there.

I don't have a problem being insulted if there's content behind it, but if you look at the posts above you will see content free insults stating that I'm a supporter of a rapist. That crosses the line. That's why I won't respond to that piece of shit because I take that personally and if you know anything about me you know why. It's not that I can't take it, it's that the appropriate response to such a depraved statement cannot occur digitally.

If you have a complaint about the exact manner in which you were insulted- fine. That is your right.

If you have a complaint about the fact that you were insulted, and that the insults didn't come with a yummy content coating, after you turned up your nose at a plateful of content earlier... Well, again, I don't have much respect for that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A moderator? I have completely owned you on both substance and insult in this thread. You can't even compete on blowjob metaphors. I want no interferiance, though I suppose you will get a mercy intervention soon the way you are digging.

As to baiting you to respond embarrassingly, the results are self evident. As per usual you see the danger but like other small stupid mammals you can't help yourself. You have no powers here, Trumpian.

Hi there. Both your asses got reported for this one.

I don't really care about the substance of the argument here (though I will read it now), but this is just a friendly reminder to act like what you are. Fully functioning adults.

Flagg: Ignore Patroklos if you need to and address the argument made by the fully realized adults in the room like Simon (and I mean actually address it. His posts are long because he actually is trying to argue in favor of his position in a rational way. This is to be commended. He is one of the more reasonable people on SDN). He wants to get under your skin so he can get you in a frothing rage. Don't let him.