Nuclear War: Russia will strike first. Video! watch!
youtube.com — Pre-emptive nuclear strikes may be used to defend Russia, according to the country ’s Chief of Armed Forces General Staff, Yury Baluevsky. His comments come as tensions remain high between Russia and the U.S. over American plans for a missile defense shield in Europe
breakingviews- 712 diggs
- digg it
- MrTonic, on 01/22/2008, -33/+63It's not just the fact that US is building a missile "defense" shield (read: a first strike weapon), right next door to Russia, but the fact that Iran and Russia are, if not allies, close friends. Russia has many times said that aggression towards Iran will be considered as an aggression towards it self. China has said similar things.
I just can't believe that even Bush and Cheney would be so arrogant and pure evil that they would launch WWIII for over oil or CPR for monetary system. I just can't. Not even them. I have to assume that this is just a trick to scare us *****, to cover up something that they don't want to us be looking.- dshPls, on 01/22/2008, -31/+13Yes it's once again Americas fault.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -11/+18In this case - is there doubt?
In Iraq, is there doubt?- CiXeL, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4didnt russia strike first in the john titor saga?
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -8/+15Is there a doubt? YES! How the ***** is America threatening Russia for gods sake? These ***** psychos are threatening a NUCLEAR first strike aka END of life as we know it, how are you okay with that?
Every god damned nation needs to have their nuclear arsenals striped from them before one of these overstuffed power-hungry assholes gets itchy on the trigger.- Daedalus81, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7Yea, uhh, didn't Bush do the same thing to Iran? Are you ok with that?
- there, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11You have a bad memory bub.
A. Bush started this "pre-emptive" wars nonsense. (well him and Hitler who also argued it)
B. ABM systems that incapacitate Russia's ability to retaliate to a US nuclear attack can be viewed as a threat to Russia national security. This is why the US SIGNED the ABM treaty ages ago but unilaterally withdrew from it in 2003, http://tinyurl.com/2dcfkl
I agree with you completely about nukes being stupid. Since the Soviet States of America is the No.1 consumer/producer of weapons in the world (by a longshot), does the greatest amount of conquest, kills the most number of people, and has military bases located in dozens of countries all around the world.... I vote it starts the process of demilitarization first.
http://tinyurl.com/2dsamr
http://tinyurl.com/ypeadk
- l33tspam, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4did you RTFA or not? America is planning an attack on Iran. Russia and China will both attack us in Irans defense...learn to read.
- cbreaker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No, the US isn't PLANNING on attacking Iran. What was said was that we should be prepared for such an action if forced to.
Not that I defend that statement, but you've warped it in your little conspiracy pea brain of yours to something more then it is.
- cbreaker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No, the US isn't PLANNING on attacking Iran. What was said was that we should be prepared for such an action if forced to.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -11/+18In this case - is there doubt?
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -17/+18Left-leaning positions opposing space/missile defense initiatives are positions I've honestly never understood at all. How in the world do you staunchly oppose a defensive shield that could relieve us from M.A.D. fears? Construction workers wear hard hats, does that mean they're going to ram their heads against walls and beams?
A defensive shield isn't a first strike weapon, it's a defensive shield. Want to know what a first strike weapon is? Putin locking out opponents like Other Russia from participating in elections and throwing other opposition leadership figures in Russia such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky into jail on flimsy corruption charges in order to dictate national policy.- PhilMoskowitz, on 01/22/2008, -9/+11You fundamentally misunderstand global defense and the cold war in general.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -4/+8Well it's a good thing I'm talking about contemporary Russian-U.S. relations and not the Cold War then, isn't it?
- cbreaker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1What's the difference? It's still two governments with too much power with extremely destructive weapons pointed at each other. While there's better communications now, things aren't completely different now.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -4/+8Well it's a good thing I'm talking about contemporary Russian-U.S. relations and not the Cold War then, isn't it?
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -7/+7Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for Russia to be threatening a nuclear first strike over the missile shield. They have their other motives but I think top among them are the government officials who want to relive their KGB glory days.
- JoelBakan01, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3They're just playing the same games you are only for them the threat is real - you.
- Barbosa, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2No matter what defense shield we field, the threat of MAD will not be eliminated. n fact it's possible that implementing such a thing might have more negative side effects than value as a defensive missle shield. I'm not a rocket scientist so I don't know if it could be used as a defensive weapon, however, it seems that there is no chance that (using current technology) a defense shield can be built that will make us impervious to attack.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Yeah, but you have to start somewhere or there won't be progress. Just because you couldn't go to the moon with a Mercury rocket doesn't mean you don't bother building any rockets until the Saturn V is invented.
- strangewill, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Most experts agree that missile defense shields are useless due to the cost of a defense shield per warhead stopped. The costs skyrocket as holes still exist in the system.
Laser is the way to go, however still gives Russia a reason to attack.
- strangewill, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Most experts agree that missile defense shields are useless due to the cost of a defense shield per warhead stopped. The costs skyrocket as holes still exist in the system.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Yeah, but you have to start somewhere or there won't be progress. Just because you couldn't go to the moon with a Mercury rocket doesn't mean you don't bother building any rockets until the Saturn V is invented.
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5You also fundamentally misunderstand what the oligarchs were and what they did to russia. Khodorkovsky was criminal scum.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5"You also fundamentally misunderstand..." Blah, blah, blah, go take your arrogant soap boxing back to your social studies class, tool!
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5A reply of that complexity and wit calls for an obligatory eat ***** ass face, so there you are.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5"You also fundamentally misunderstand..." Blah, blah, blah, go take your arrogant soap boxing back to your social studies class, tool!
- loveandrockets, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5What foreign policy wonks and top leaders understand is that a missile shield is a First Strike Weapon.
A missile shield cannot possibly stop all the missiles launched from Russia. It can, however, stop a bunch. If the US strikes first and annihilates most of the missiles, then the missile shield can stop the limited retaliatory strike.
Therefore any talk of a missile shield is talk of a First Strike Weapon. I am not making this up. People smarter and higher-placed than me have said this.- Buckeye17, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1There are ways to get around defensive missiles. One way is firing a bunch of "blanks."
- BabyWookie, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1bury
- BabyWookie, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1The latest Russian ICBMs carry around 30 counter-measures each, in addition to having evasive maneuvering, armor-hardened, etc warheads. It would be a nightmare for any ABM system in a foreseeable future to intercept.
- Buckeye17, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1There are ways to get around defensive missiles. One way is firing a bunch of "blanks."
- Sabarok, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5The theory is, by having a defense shield, it forces other super powers to develop better missles, which forces a stronger shield, which forces stronger missles. It would be an arms race costing both sides tons of money and encouraging negative thoughts about the other side. While they still have the ability to wipe each other out, Russia sees this as the US trying to get a leg up on Russia, which forces Russia to improve to become an equal, or they'd forfeit their status as a world power (in their eyes).
The missle shield itself wouldn't have much of an effect on a Russian strike, but the Russians feel that it's encroaching onto Russia's sphere of influence. There's also not a lot of trust at the current administration world wide to hold back on their military aggression. They're ready to invade Iran over religious differences. - demonduck, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2I suggest dropping the concept what a 'first strike weapon' is and instead attempt to understand the complexity of this situation beyond simply thinking about protecting ourselves. MAD accepts as its most basic tenet that all powers will seek to protect themselves and this implies an ever growing escalation of deadly force creating a climate of social and political fear. Should Russia or any other power attempt to setup a 'missile defensive shield' along our borders (say like the Cuban Missile Crisis) I imagine the US would react far more strongly than the rhetoric we've been hearing here. The US, from what I've been reading recently, has not only broken with every accord to halt proliferation, they have also been making strides into weaponizing space. All the while, every so-called US diplomatic package has been laced with threats that give every reason for other governments to be extremely wary of US intentions.
There is no relief from 'M.A.D. fears' by 'defensive' escalation and inept diplomacy. - Myonosken, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Because this will totally obliterate Russias current offensive systems? Should the time ever come, Russia want to be able to defend themselves not be stuck behind the equivalent of holding a midget at arms length and letting him swing at you.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 01/22/2008, -9/+11You fundamentally misunderstand global defense and the cold war in general.
- tsotha, on 01/22/2008, -5/+15This is ridiculous. If the US attacks Iran Russia and China will do nothing, despite this fool's blustering. In any event, I've been hearing all about the coming attack by the US on Iran for, what, about two years now on Digg? Bush and Cheney sure are dragging their feet on this... it's almost like they're not actually planning to attack Iran...
- Sabarok, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2It is very much in Russia & China's interest that the US do not take over the middle east and gain control of all that oil. There's also the political standing they'd lose if they backed down. Russia won't use nukes unless the Americans do first, but you would see Russia sending in military support into Iran. I think China would bide it's time, but they are a bigger threat to the US than anyone imagines. Like a 1930s US, they are a sleeping giant. Their economy is strong, they have the people, and they have enough technology. All they have to do is wait out the US economy. If the US & Russia fight it out, China wins by waiting
- tsotha, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0Oh, I agree with you on all counts. But what the subject of the article is saying is Russia will use nukes in the event the US invades (attacks?) Iran. That will not happen. Would Russia give them weapons? Sure. And China will sell weapons to anyone with money. But neither of them will go to nuclear war over Iran.
- Sabarok, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2It is very much in Russia & China's interest that the US do not take over the middle east and gain control of all that oil. There's also the political standing they'd lose if they backed down. Russia won't use nukes unless the Americans do first, but you would see Russia sending in military support into Iran. I think China would bide it's time, but they are a bigger threat to the US than anyone imagines. Like a 1930s US, they are a sleeping giant. Their economy is strong, they have the people, and they have enough technology. All they have to do is wait out the US economy. If the US & Russia fight it out, China wins by waiting
- p0ss, on 01/22/2008, -6/+10M.A.D has kept the U.S from conquering/destroying the rest of the world. If it disapears, what are you left with? A situation where the U.S. can do whatever it wants, anywhere it wants, without anyone being able to retaliate.
- Rakuseki, on 01/22/2008, -10/+4....Are you insane? Can you show me some proof where the United States has made it policy to take over the world? It's a capitalist country, guy. There's no profit in 'conquering/destroying the rest of the world'. Why don't you tighten up that tinfoil hat a little more.
- p0ss, on 01/22/2008, -1/+8Ok, ever read "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"? its available over at whitehouse.gov http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
You may also want to have a look at a document entitled "rebuilding america's defenses" at newamericancentury.org http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric ... if you need a little more information on the project for a new american century, you might want to look at the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...
Why is this organisation important in shaping america's foreign policy? because Cheney, Jeb Bush scooter libby, donald rumsfeld and Paul wolfowitz are all signatories to its statement of principles.
In short, the idea is for America to become a global police force, including military bases everywhere (which there all ready are) full scale wars on multiple fronts and spreading "economic freedom" around the world.
If that is not a plan for world domination i dont know what is. - MrTonic, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3No profit???? What exactly is more profitable in this world than full scale war? NOTHING. War is most lucrative business that there is. Billions and trillions in loans, buying arms, looting, etc. everything else falls back, big time. Drugs, weapons and prostitution are petty businesses compared to war. Peace is considered unprofitable. Why do you think that US have almost constantly waged war after WWII? Because national security? C'mon.
- p0ss, on 01/22/2008, -1/+8Ok, ever read "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"? its available over at whitehouse.gov http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
- Rakuseki, on 01/22/2008, -10/+4....Are you insane? Can you show me some proof where the United States has made it policy to take over the world? It's a capitalist country, guy. There's no profit in 'conquering/destroying the rest of the world'. Why don't you tighten up that tinfoil hat a little more.
- Majhem, on 01/22/2008, -2/+13"I just can't believe that even Bush and Cheney would be so arrogant and pure evil..."
Ummm, they are moving to retroactively protect themselves from possible future War Crimes charges. I don't think anything is below this Administration - noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -9/+5Bush and Cheney??? Try Putin, last I checked America hadn't threatened a nuclear strike against Russia in recent days.
- Peck3277, on 01/22/2008, -2/+13Are you thick? Really a simple yes or no answer. There was no threat to America, they said the would defend themselves against anyone-not America- anyone.
He basically said that they will defend their country if necessary which I believe is right even if I do disagree with the methods. Be certain sure about it that if a country was poised to invade American soil that they would launch a pre-emptive strike. Look at Iraq for christ's sake - LordByr0n, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2And when was the last time any nation was threatened with a nuclear strike? OH and did Putin do it?
- Peck3277, on 01/22/2008, -2/+13Are you thick? Really a simple yes or no answer. There was no threat to America, they said the would defend themselves against anyone-not America- anyone.
- quarando, on 01/22/2008, -7/+3The above post is just ignorant. Putin is a KGB thug who is recklessly threatening a nuclear first strike. Just because Bush/Cheney are evil doesn't imply that Putin isn't. In fact, Putin is even worse than Bush/Cheney in most respects. If you think Bush has been bad for democracy in the US, take a look at what Putin has done to Russia. And don't make this pathetic argument that Russia and Iran are close friends, they are only "friends" because it weakens US influence in the region.
- Bear101160, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0I disagree, I have very close friends in eastern Russia, and the economy, work etc.. is very bad. Like Bush Putin needs to look inward. This kind of posturing on both parts is just to detract from domestic issues. Additionally the Russian mind set is that of strong leaders. Unfortunately our form of democracy will not work everywhere and we must understand the different cultures to realize this. Our form of democracy won't work in the middle east any more than it will work in Russia.
- mstrebe, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1The missile defense shield, while stupid and ineffective, is not a first strike weapon. Why would we need a few missiles in the Czech republic when we have thousands of ICBMs in the U.S., all fully capable of reaching Russia in 30 minutes?
- CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Missile defense is only a first strike weapon if you have enough defensive missiles to allow you to launch your offensive missiles and then shoot down ALL the incoming missiles. So, if you wanted to nuke North Korea, then game on. If you want to nuke Russia or the US you better be able to shoot down about 3000 incoming warheads, plus cruse missiles, and bombs dropped from planes too. Now, I'm not saying building is a good idea, because I think it's a waste of money.
RE: Iran and Russia. If the US attacks Iran (which we should not do preemptively) Russia is not going to nuke anyone. They are not going to risk 3000+ incoming US warheads. If Russia were to launch a nuclear strike against the west, even a limited one (or the US against Russia for that matter), within about 90 minutes about 7,000 nuclear warheads will be detonated, and that, as they say, will be that. - mundus, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You couldn't have said it better, Mr. Tonic!
- iainc, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2It's time that European nations started forcibly closing American strategic assets, which are based on European soil. Quite frankly, I think Russia's AND America's whack-job presidents are spoiling for a scrap and I think it's time for Europe to cease being THEIR battlefield. Let them lob rockets at each other, and leave us out of it!
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Why would they do that? Every one of them profits from those installations in some way. Germany especially makes a lot of money out of US wars. Not saying I don't think we should pull back and mind our own business but there is no incentive for Europe to push America away.
- dshPls, on 01/22/2008, -31/+13Yes it's once again Americas fault.
- chrisb7, on 01/22/2008, -32/+11In Soviet Russia, TV watches you. :D
- Xerces, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3the smiley killed it.
- NightVortez, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3The joke itself kills it.
- Jeffler, on 01/22/2008, -2/+6If world war 3 happens tomorrow I'm blaming you
- EatingPie, on 01/22/2008, -21/+16How does a missile defense shield constitute a "First Strike Weapon"?
* Upgraded Early-warning Radar (UEWR)
* X-band/Ground-based Radar (XBR)
* Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS)
* Battle Management, Command, Control and Communications (BMC3)
* Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs)
Where are the First Strike Nuclear weapons in that list?
Russia does not want the balance of power turned (no more Mutual Assured Destruction) because they cannot build such a system themselves. Putin has been making increasingly threatening overtures against the US, and to me that makes an NMDS even more important. It is a purely defensive weapon (though I am not so ignorant that I don't see the potential for twisting even this).
The plan for a missile shield is a good one. Russia isn't the only nuclear power any more. And it would not be Bush and Cheney launching WWIII at this point, it would be Putin -- because HE is the one talking first strike, not the United States.
-Pie- MrTonic, on 01/22/2008, -8/+15The missile shield cannot defend against full scale nuclear missile launch. It just cant. BUT it can defend against retaliation, after US first strike. So, by rendering their possibility of retaliation obsolete, it makes this "defend" system a very effective first strike weapon.
Get it? Or do i have to draw a picture for you?- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7So Russia launches 10,000 nukes in a full scale launch -- missile shield can't stop it.
But Russia launches 10,000 nukes in a full retaliatory launch -- missile shield can stop it?
Maybe you should draw a picture, because you suck with words.- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Yeah, because the 50,000 US missles used in a first strike would completely miss Russia's missles.
Moron.- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Dude, retaliatory strikes launch well before first strike missiles make land fall -- missiles don't travel at the speed of light.
Christ, I feel like I'm talking with first graders on this forum. - clorby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1@duffydirect
wow. so i guess our military strategists are complete ***** morons. obviously, since aiming at their nuclear weapons is entirely ineffective. maybe you should run for president.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Dude, retaliatory strikes launch well before first strike missiles make land fall -- missiles don't travel at the speed of light.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Yeah, because the 50,000 US missles used in a first strike would completely miss Russia's missles.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6Defense against retaliation is not first strike. As he said, America is not threatening a first strike Russia is, how the hell does that make America the bad guy?
- CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1If your a leftist America hater, no reason is needed.
- Rakuseki, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Uh huh, that's assuming that the retaliation is going to be using less numbers of weapons than a full scale nuclear missile launch - provided we hit them with a nuke ourselves. Secondly, any ABM system is multi-tiered so the point is to minimize the damage. Nobody expects to be some kind of all encompassing shield that protects everything. I understand your logic, any object defensive or otherwise is an offensive weapon (i.e. 'the best offense is a good defense'). I get that. The issue is this, why shouldn't the US make it? To appease the Russians? Since when was it a bad thing for a country to put itself in a position to maintain itself and its assets? I find considering the US 'wrong' in this aspect to be kinda foolish strategically especially given the fact that the Russians are already developing a missile defense system with the range of 3500 KM which if appropriately placed throughout Russia (not even counting it's allies) could blanket all of Eastern Bloc, down into the Middle East and so on.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3It's just rampant anti-Americanism. It's really and truly gotten out of control. I was in Shannon airport in Ireland and American soldiers from the airbase about to be deployed were using the shower stalls in the bathroom. All these Irish and Euopeans were snickering and muttering things to each other as if the soldiers taking the shower were looting and raping villages.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4I would say that the rest of the world has a good reason to be anti American. America is a criminal nation. We criminally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We murder civilians. We torture innocents including children. Those soldiers were lucky they weren't physically attacked. The Europeans were showing restraint.
- CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2@chicofaraby - Afghanistan was justified. Iraq not so much, but regardless, the UN signed off on it - bad idea does not equal criminal.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2"Afghanistan was justified"
No it wasn't.
"the UN signed off on it "
No they didn't.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3It's just rampant anti-Americanism. It's really and truly gotten out of control. I was in Shannon airport in Ireland and American soldiers from the airbase about to be deployed were using the shower stalls in the bathroom. All these Irish and Euopeans were snickering and muttering things to each other as if the soldiers taking the shower were looting and raping villages.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7So Russia launches 10,000 nukes in a full scale launch -- missile shield can't stop it.
- liquidjamm, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Oh wow - I think Pie just ate itself.
- smackhero, on 01/22/2008, -6/+12russia starting WW III? how many countries has russia invaded in the past decade?
russia, like most nations, has its own set of problems, but stop holding onto that cold war boogyman of the red menace. i think the international community would get along much better, and everyone would live better, if people focused on reforming the problems of their own countries--where they actually have the power (and right) to influence policy--rather than pointing fingers and accusations at other nations.- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7What the hell does their record have to do with it? They threaten a nuclear first strike without any provocation and you bring up their record??? If some guy pulls a gun to your head will you rest easy knowing he has a clean criminal record?
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4"without any provocation"
Because the US invading two of their neighbors isn't provocative at all....- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4??? You need to take a look at a map mate.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Looking at a map... Yes.
from Iraq to Russia ... appx 300 miles.... neighbors. - noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2300 miles through a few other countries. Not neighbors at all.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1I never claimed they shared a border. In terms of world geography 300 miles is a miniscule distance.
The house two doors down isn't your neighbor? - noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Perhaps, but the US is only 50 miles from their border, so what is the difference. If they're worried about us being close they need to sell off some real estate.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4"without any provocation"
- Myonosken, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Don't blame the international community- the "commie meance" is all in the USA. If the rest of us hate Russia it's because they killed someone on our own soil or are being arseholes with oil and the sort.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7What the hell does their record have to do with it? They threaten a nuclear first strike without any provocation and you bring up their record??? If some guy pulls a gun to your head will you rest easy knowing he has a clean criminal record?
- SitPoMk, on 01/22/2008, -9/+0if we were in russia right now
***** would so full of you - punkcat, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2SDI gives you the ability to strike first by way of no fear of retaliation, thats where it comes from.
same issue when we started the star wars system in the 80s, strategic defense initiative was very popular at that time.- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Missiles launched from the ground to intercept ICBMs before reaching space aren't SDI! The S stands for SPACE!
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1oops i was wrong, ignore me message O:-)
- CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Define "no fear of retaliation" when your opponent has 7,000 to 10,000 warheads on ground based missiles, submarine launched missiles, cruise missiles, supersonic bombers, etc. There is no such thing as no fear of retaliation between the US and Russia.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Missiles launched from the ground to intercept ICBMs before reaching space aren't SDI! The S stands for SPACE!
- jaymzdean, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2"How does a missile defense shield constitute a 'First Strike Weapon'?"
Sort of like a "Patriot Act" is supposed to protect our liberties. Wake up.
http://tinyurl.com/24qhz7
- MrTonic, on 01/22/2008, -8/+15The missile shield cannot defend against full scale nuclear missile launch. It just cant. BUT it can defend against retaliation, after US first strike. So, by rendering their possibility of retaliation obsolete, it makes this "defend" system a very effective first strike weapon.
- footballhero, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4makes fukuyama's fantasy look even more ridiculous. this stuff is in the nature of the state system.
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1don't say that about my mama ever again
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Mod parent up!
He's referring to Japanese neocon Francis Fukuyama's book "The End of History," which makes the ludicrous claim that the American system is the end-all of human development and when the world adopts it it will be peace, happiness, and strawberry-banana smoothies for everyone.
- Brad324, on 01/22/2008, -2/+75in soviet russia, no-one makes ***** jokes about soviet russia
- breakingviews, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2where does Soviet Russia come from, man?
- brentinkc, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Not true about the Digg comment board, apparently.
- DeskFlyer, on 01/22/2008, -2/+12In Soviet Russia, ***** jokes annoy YOU!
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5I'm sorry, but I insist... it's ALWAYS funny when done right.
- tehAleksandrRox, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Actually in Soviet Russia no one makes jokes about Soviet Russia, let alone ***** ones.
- cambob76, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1There is no Soviet Russia so there are no ***** jokes about Soviet Russia told there.
- sathias, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Don't nuke me, comrade!
- strum40, on 01/22/2008, -2/+24It is 50 years since the nuclear holocaust almost destroyed mankind. War is now outlawed, and all territorial disputes between the two great alliances are settled by single combat. Here at the confederation playing field in Siberia a battle rages between to gigantic fighting machines piloted by their nations champions, the Robot Jox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1N7MhFO7yw- brentinkc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Best movie ever made.
- gmiley, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4If by "best" you mean worst, then yeah, even still, ***** awesome movie. =)
- theperiodman, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6Wow. I totally forgot about that movie.
Must. Find. Immediately. - Beatmiser, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5I remember seeing it in the theater and saying to my friend... "He's not gonna launch the fist... he's no- holy ***** he launched the fist..."
- ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3***** awesome. I still remember being a young, young boy and thinking to myself, "Thus goes the way of war. A gentleman's duel to the wound. A better world for us all."
I was an odd kid.
- brentinkc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Best movie ever made.
- s4g4n, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5The missile knows where it is by knowing where it isn't. By knowing where it isn't, it knows where it is...
- xNaquada, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Awesome, can someone dig up the link for that old video?
Dugg UP 100x if I could.
- xNaquada, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Awesome, can someone dig up the link for that old video?
- mikesbaker, on 01/22/2008, -10/+5a preemptive nuclear strike would be suicide - the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is alive and well and the US still has a lot more nuclear weapons than russia.
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2That's why the neocons want it to go down now.
- jayfish, on 01/22/2008, -4/+8The U.S. does not and has not had, since the 70's, more nuclear weapons than Russia. The arrogance of my fellow Americans starts to smell after a time.
Jay- jwolcott, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2He's right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_n ...
- B3bomber, on 01/22/2008, -1/+9Actually, Russia has more nukes than the USA.
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2In terms of delivery vehicles or megatons?
I'm pretty sure we out-megaton them by about 4-to-1. Not that that's anything to be proud of, it's one of the reasons we're so far up our own ass in debt.
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2In terms of delivery vehicles or megatons?
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4Well in your attack on Americans as "arrogant" you left out a key fact...
Russia has a lot more nukes than the U.S. because they have less accurate missiles. The US missiles are very accurate, so we don't need as many.- Azzrael, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Since when did a nuclear weapon have to be accurate?
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Doesn't have to be accurate to take out a city. Taking out an opposing silo on the other hand...
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2If you're shooting at New York and your missile lands 30 miles east of New York, all you're going to do is make a cool fireworks show and kill some folks in the Azores.
- Azzrael, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Since when did a nuclear weapon have to be accurate?
- orangefly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2it's still shooting each other in the head with one of having a slightly bigger gun....
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Right. They'll still be able to take out half the population of the US, but I honestly think these neocons don't care. They care more about their personal vendettas with russia.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2you're out of line. national defense is not a neocon agenda.
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5It's not national defense unless it's only to defend our nation. These guys are going around the world settling the vendettas of the chosen people with our military power. Their going to wind up killing your family in their little adventures. There's nothing national about it. It's globalist imperial and you won't benefit from it in any way.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2you're out of line. national defense is not a neocon agenda.
- flogistan, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Right. They'll still be able to take out half the population of the US, but I honestly think these neocons don't care. They care more about their personal vendettas with russia.
- jayfish, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1You’re right; I should have said "some of my fellow Americans". Now with that out of the way, you don't know what you’re talking about. The number of weapons they built comes from several reasons. One major reason was that the USSR had a true doctrine of overwhelming force. So much so that if, at the height of the Cold War, the USSR mounted a protracted attack against Europe using only conventional weapons; the only defense against such an attack would be a nuclear first-strike by the US. They simply applied that doctrine to their nuclear stockpiles. Another major reason is that they were in a pissing match of prestige against the US and besting us in anything was a huge PR deal. I think the CEP of delivery systems during the Cold War was actually pretty close between the US and the USSR. We pulled away for a few years but I think things have tightened again.
Jay- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Everything you said is true, but that's only partially the case when it comes to nuclear armament. Their missiles WERE less technologically advanced and accurate in comparison to American counterparts. The number of missiles is only one aspect of the issue. The other important aspect is the potency of the warheads themselves. While the Soviets worked tirelessly to increase the potency of their H-bombs in order to compensate for inaccuracy, the United States actually limited itself and only had a 30mt+ explosion as a result of an accident/miscalculation at bikini.
- jayfish, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1We actually had three detonations over 30Mt. Castle (your example), Hardtack and Dominic. As for the rest, try this story
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7229
It's long but it's good.
Jay
- jayfish, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1We actually had three detonations over 30Mt. Castle (your example), Hardtack and Dominic. As for the rest, try this story
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Everything you said is true, but that's only partially the case when it comes to nuclear armament. Their missiles WERE less technologically advanced and accurate in comparison to American counterparts. The number of missiles is only one aspect of the issue. The other important aspect is the potency of the warheads themselves. While the Soviets worked tirelessly to increase the potency of their H-bombs in order to compensate for inaccuracy, the United States actually limited itself and only had a 30mt+ explosion as a result of an accident/miscalculation at bikini.
- Xerces, on 01/22/2008, -0/+12Someone call Dr. Strangelove please.
- StarlessKnight, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Announcer: "Paging Dr. Strangelove. Dr. Strangelove, will you please report to the War Room?"
- neocr0n, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3With Strangelove's plan of 10 females to each male I'm on board.
- roffelmeh, on 01/22/2008, -8/+1dont ***** with russia
i mean check this out
http://digg.com/comedy/Only_in_Russiahcould_you_fi ...
and to think they have nukes - drunkentoad, on 01/22/2008, -1/+33It's pretty damm scary how the "leaders" of Earth so willingly throw around the words 'nuclear strike' and 'world war 3' these days.
- chumprock, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10Not really. Fear is very marketable lately.
- wurtis16, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0This is why you don't set precedent by using a "strike-first" preemptive policy. Other nations would be stupid not to do the same.
- itwasstinky, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4hey Russia, wanna power level me?
i hear your pretty good with aoes- drunkentoad, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4nerd
- hansk, on 01/22/2008, -2/+8The video clearly states this is not an increase in Russian aggression, simply stating their stance if they were to be invaded. Why they feel to state this is a bit unclear. My feelings towards the whole article is "Meh, so?" The biggest worry there was if the media was blow this out of proportion.
Also, that reporter's lips totally did not sync up with the audio in the end, looked like a bad dubbing job.- Miche1987, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1So if Russia gets invaded, they strike back. How is that a "preemptive strike" like they mentioned in the video? I thought a preemptive strike was something to *prevent* someone from attacking/invading you. Am I missing something here?
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3The European missile shield is clearly targeted at them. If such a shield existed, Russia's nuclear deterrent would be negated and the West could push Russia around with impunity.
The way our side has been carving up their former satellites in the past 15 years I would be nervous, too. - bosssmiley, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1This isn't *really* news. It's been pretty common knowledge for decades now that the Russians will react to any attack on their country with overwhelming force (up to and including nuclear weaponry). Losing 20 million+ people to the Nazis tended to focus the minds of their military planners on never letting the same thing happen again. The guy is just stating their standard military policy.
- dildoolielly, on 01/22/2008, -24/+21WORLD LAUGHS @ USA
The pending defeat of the U.S. military in Iraq and the embarrassing failures of the g.w. bush administration have set off a chain of events around the world.The world laughs and no longer fears the USA..just look at europe's attitude when bush crawls back and begs for help, they brush him off like nothing.North korea does the same, the say "screw you, we will do as we please" adn are now building nukes.The latest news is that Russia and Iran have signed a deal over nuclear fuel....thats basically both countries simultaneously saying " screw you" to bush and his crooked administration. Sooner or later, all of this will catch up to the USA, no empire lasts forever. Bush sheep, YOU are the laughing stock of the ENTIRE world...it was all so obvious right under your noses, yet your blind ignorance brought down the worlds sole super power....you are not only the laughing stock now but will be the laughing stock in history books for centuries to come. Future historians will ponder how this was so....and every text book will show that chimp face with that evil, snobby grin on it....future pupils will nod their head in disbelief and pity.- fr0mundacheese, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7having trouble figuring out what your angle is...
- dildoolielly, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Well, I'm sorry then, the cheeseburger grease must be slowing down your brain cells
- Rakuseki, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7Wow, you're clueless.
- dildoolielly, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Your "response" is not a rebuttal. Please respond to my points, or don't respond at all. These ad hominem attacks only give the impression that you disagree because you want to. If you have any disagreements with what I said, state them. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to not click "Submit Comment" next time? Thank you.
- tsotha, on 01/22/2008, -9/+4Uh, yeah, except Iraq is pretty much over. We won already.
- DigitAl56K, on 01/22/2008, -5/+8Right right... "Mission Accomplished"...
- mancat, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5you taunted happy fun ball, didn't you?
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Yeah funny think about a World War, it involves the entire world. When you're as happy as you are about it, you, and everyone who dugg you up, should seriously get your head checked. Nuclear war WILL involve everyone.
- noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6Do we seriously have people here who think a Nuclear war will not wipe out everyone?
- Snuff99, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7What kind of empire has a VOLUNTEER army? If America is such a war mongering nation why is the world not rallied against our actions?! Because we are not an empire, there is no taste for world domination amongst these people. Shut your face.
- overkillingness, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Brainwashing... Hey, it worked with you...
- Snuff99, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Brainwashing?? Where is the Alliance against America? Show me. Where are the armies of the world that are to invade Washington and stop this tyrannical regime!? They don't exist you maroon! There is no alliance against America, if our army is crushed and we are weak why has no one attacked?! I'm brainwashed? I see the world with sane eyes, you are ridiculous. Please join your delusional friend and Shut your face.
- Rakuseki, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Wow, has Digg really gotten this bad? It's like the internet's liberal bastion.
- dildoolielly, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1A "volunteer" army? LOL. You need to do a little research.
"A fool is my shepherd. I shall not think. He maketh me to bog down in a quagmire. He leadeth me beside dirty waters. He destroyeth my ozone. He leadeth me down paths to the extreme right, for his lobbyists' sake. Yea, though I walk through relatively safe streets, I do fear evil (the threat level is orange), for thou hast scared me. My assault rifle comforteth me. Thou anointest my car with oil. My deficit runneth over. Thou preparest my table with fast food in the presence of my television. Surely paranoia and resentment will follow me all the days of my life. And Iwill dwell in this Empire of Fools till I die, uninsured."
- Semper Fi- Snuff99, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2I've done all the research needed just by living here. I'm a male of fighting age and have not had one day of military training. What kind of empire, trying to dominate the world, would allow millions of their fighting aged men to go untrained in the art of warfare? I've lived in this country from birth and have been allow to make my own choices, within reason, unimpeded by the government. You are full of *****. You know nothing of what it is to be an American and so I beg you, SHUT YOUR FACE.
- overkillingness, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3Brainwashing... Hey, it worked with you...
- fr0mundacheese, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7having trouble figuring out what your angle is...
- NightVortez, on 01/22/2008, -3/+36Right........Russia is the aggressive country here...
- Djokuuskaj, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7im seriously tired of people are thinking we are to attack the us. we're not that dumb ok?
- masfenix, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4ahh ***** man, Mankind is gonna ***** it self over one day. And it seems like I wont even get to graduate college.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1It's the nature of the people chosen for office that is creating this environment. Everyone thinks nationalism is endemic to human nature. No. It's a product of the personality that is driven to seek power, and the weakness of the voters who choose these emotional cripples.
- xsquirrel378x, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3yeah it almost seems naive to think that we wont witness the end of civilization in our lifetime. make a checklist of a few things you want to do so you can die happy heres mine:
1) have a threesome (2 girls, preferably both above a 6/10)
2) read entire "remembrance of things past" in french
3) beat wizardry 1-8, have only beat part 1 so far :(
4) contribute something useful to society (i think this ones hopeless)- moonshn, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I had a high school soccer coach of all things that had us read "À la recherche du temps perdu"... not in french though; beautiful piece of literature
- Zlorp, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11i didn't realize that firing first in a nuclear war gave you any sort of advantage.
- Ozzsanity, on 01/22/2008, -0/+12a 30 minute advantage
- Zlorp, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7enough time to beg God for forgiveness?
- jwolcott, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3No, just enough time to dance with the Devil and face the music of the underground before you melt through the floor and meet - not your maker - but your eternal enslaver.
- Zlorp, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7enough time to beg God for forgiveness?
- tarzan99, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5You get to kill their guys a thousand times over as opposed to the 582 times over that the reactor will manage
- Ozzsanity, on 01/22/2008, -0/+12a 30 minute advantage
- RazingmanC, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3like us has said this along time ago whats the big deal if russia says it now??
- StGhurka, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2What's the big deal?
For the last 15 years, both the US and Russia have been gradually backing themselves out of their cold-war postures. The thought of a nuclear war was starting to feel like nothing more than an unpleasant memory.
The big deal is that this is a big step in the wrong direction.
- StGhurka, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2What's the big deal?
- Jfox386, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1For the motherland!!!!!!!!
- Aeuta, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6I love how they said they would only use a preemptive strike if absolutely sure. Well I remember one other country which was once absolutely sure, things didn't go so well.
- sexydarin, on 01/22/2008, -2/+22Face it. If one nuke goes off, all nukes go off. there will be no survivors.
- CiXeL, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4there would be lots of survivors. only the hermits and people in micronesia will be fine though. live someplace that isnt a strategic target.
- moonshn, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I used to live in Marietta, GA, home of the Lockheed Martin plant... have to admit i got a little nervous when the thing with Cuba went down
- StarlessKnight, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2If we have any scientists studying in the Antarctic, they might survive. They'll have to start being more vegetarian once they run out of supplies and make for the southern tip of South America (or maybe set up some hydroponics in a lab), but it's remotely plausible.
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2And why is that? If Russia and the US started lobbing nukes at each other you think we'd chuck some Africa's way just in case some Russians were there on vacation?
The cold war is over. The world isn't divided in half anymore.- Sharpezor, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1you dont know anything about nukes or politics, if 1 nuke is fired, there are systems that automatically fire other nukes.
- CiXeL, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4there would be lots of survivors. only the hermits and people in micronesia will be fine though. live someplace that isnt a strategic target.
- ThatEvilGuy, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5I hope people of each government will realize wtf is up and tell their respective ones to go ***** themselves. This is all about the OIL so that leaders can fill up their pockets, common man gets ***** again.
- rallythanks, on 01/22/2008, -1/+8This cannot be. Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw love there.
- appleseed1234, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Russia's pulling an Apple!
Get ready for Cold War, Part II!- darlyn, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
- DigitAl56K, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4Quick George! Better print some more money for Halliburton! Uncle Dick needs another holiday home with complete with luxury mountain-side fall-out shelter!
- RichStradler, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Don't worry mate Hillary's coming to straighten it all out for you.
- mancat, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Please don't tell Digg user empirefalling about this.
- Typhoon2009, on 01/22/2008, -6/+21) Ironic that we build a missile defense system and immediately, Russia starts making threats. If they weren't so damn boisterous we wouldn't make a defense system in the first place.
2) Does it really matter who strikes first? As soon as a major power uses a nuke, in a few hours the Earth will be a nuclear wasteland unless someone does some crafty diplomacy. - fLUx1337, on 01/22/2008, -6/+1In Soviet Russia......Russia destroys you?
OK, this is stupid, the first story in ages ABOUT Russia, and that's the best "In Soviet Russia..." joke I can think of, typical... - Narrator, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Anyone ever watch Russia Today? It's like the Russian version of BBC. The top story of the whole night will be something like the Ukrainians are closing a monument thanking the Russians for help in World War II. That and they almost always have some story about how the Georgia (As in that American and European friendly ex-soviet satellite country between Russian and Turkey) is somehow getting on Russia's nerves and Russia should teach them a lesson. They even have this American commentator guy on from time to time who is the most ridiculously sycophantic Putin bootlicker I've ever seen.
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Is the bootlicker named Colmes?
- jtscira, on 01/22/2008, -6/+19"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one "
John Lennon- archivist, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2die hippie!!!
heh, kidding. - badogg, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2This is more fitting:
Red flash clouds choking out the morning sky
They said it'd never come, we knew it was a lie
All forms of life die now the humans all succumb
Time to kiss your ass goodbye the end has just begun
Distorted figures walk the street, it's 2009
Weeds once underneath your feet have grown into vines
Bodies melted like a candle, a land without a face
No time to change your fate, no time left, it's too late
The arsenal of Megadeth can't be rid they said
And if it comes, the living will envy the dead
Racing for power, and all come in last
No winning first stone cast
This falsehood worldly peace
It's treaties will soon cease
No one will be left to prove that numbers existed
Maybe soon the children will be born open fisted
We all live on one planet it will all go up in smoke
Too bad they couldn't see this lethal energy
and now the final scene, a global darkening
Dig deep the piles of rubble and ruins
Towering overhead both far and wide
There's unknown tools of World War III
Einstein said "We'll use rocks on the other side"
No survivors set the world afire
Megadeth - Released in 1986
and yes, I changed the lyric to read 2009- jtscira, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately the path were on I think Megadeth may be hitting the mark.
- archivist, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2die hippie!!!
- djrbx, on 01/22/2008, -2/+12Call me a geek I don't care.. Just don't start WWIII until I see the new Star Trek Movie.. Go ahead, bury me.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 01/22/2008, -4/+20Russia can literally do what America did to it. Wait for America to run out of money. The collapse is not far off. Then the US naval yards and weapon stockpiles will end up atrophied and rusting in their ports. What comes around goes around.
- DuffyDirect, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4What, do you live on Lake Erie or in Michigan or something?! Check out all the prosperity out west or in New England or even the American south!
- Typhoon2009, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1You don't need money to launch the doomsday weapons
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Funny, I was thinking something similar yesterday. The USSR didn't quite run out of money, it just wasn't willing (or able) to go as far into debt as the US did to play the stupid arms race game.
So really, in a sense Russia won the cold war. They became nearly irrelevant politically and the economy kinda went to crap but because they cut their losses early they won't have to suffer through the mega-gigantic galactic financial ***** the US is facing.
- FluffyWolf, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2So say we all. The US has also reserved the same right. Ask any presidential candidate and they will say the same, well almost any of them anyway.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Didn't most of the republican candidates say this in their first debate? I wish I could find the video.
- dimplemonkey, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6B5...miss
H3...miss
F9...you sank my Destroyer! Screw this! All bets are off! - chugger1992, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Yury = Yuri?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_ ... - archivist, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1deja vu... i've seen this is red alert 2
- ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -5/+10Hey, Republicans, GTFO! No, really. GET THE ***** OUT! Off and on for 40 years we have watched you retards ramp up military expansion, increase deficits, and sabre rattle in preparation for a war that NO ONE IN THE ***** WORLD WANTS! You assholes have done more damage than you even know in the anticipation that someone else would bruise your ***** ego.
GET SOME ***** BALLS AND LEARN TO LEAD WITH YOUR CHIN INSTEAD OF YOUR DICK.
Nothing I hate more than pussies with guns. Seriously.
By the way, what happens when two peaceniks have a conflict over policy? They talk. What happens when two warmongers have a conflict over policy? They point guns at each other. How about we stop pointing guns at each other, you pussies.- schnikies79, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Thats fine and all, but it's an absolute fantasy.
The world is not full of peaceniks. The world is not even mostly peaceniks, it's mostly not. We sat on our ass in WWII and we got bombed for it. Germany sat on the ass and hitler took over.
In other words, GET THE ***** OUT. Nothing I hate more than people who absolutely no ***** idea what the hell the world is like outside of what you read on the internet. Of course that is pretty much standard fare for 17yo's. There is a reason that world leaders are usually 40+, because even if they are wrong, they sure as hell know more about everything than you do.
Iraq is a mess and it was a bad idea, I agree. It still doesn't change the fact that the weakest countries will be the first to fall. Defense is NEVER a bad idea. EVER.- rhodydog, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I take it you're a Republican then?
- schnikies79, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No, actually I'm not. I'm libertarian.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2All the right wingers are these days...
Who can blame them?
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2All the right wingers are these days...
- schnikies79, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No, actually I'm not. I'm libertarian.
- rhodydog, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I take it you're a Republican then?
- moonshn, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I know its really popular right now to categorize all republicans as warmongers... which, granted, most of the neo-conservatives are; but historically speaking it has been the democrats which have taken us to war and the republicans who have ended them:
WWI - Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII - Franklin Roosevelt (D)
Korean War - Harry Truman (D)
Vietnam War - Kennedy (D) / Lyndon Johnson (D)
great video: http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html
- schnikies79, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Thats fine and all, but it's an absolute fantasy.
- nate94gt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0ahhh..... 1974 all over again
- nitrojunky24, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3cold war V 2.0?
- omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2We're totally screwed, Bush doesn't acknowledge the icecaps melting. Putin could take the entire Arctic Ocean right now if he really wanted to. They'd be stupid enough to nuke the icecaps.
- KillaJazzBass, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Read Alert! Hitlers prostate..WHAT?!
- utahnkid, on 01/22/2008, -6/+2Russia is doing such a horrible job they can't even populate their own country.. the population is literally dying off faster than it can replenish itself and most of the people live a life equal to one found in a 3rd world country.
And BTW China won't be supporting Russia over the US any time soon because we're their biggest customer. And anyone thinking they don't support the war in Iraq, don't forget China is the country that gave us the funding for that war.
Every time I start thinking about all the resources put into our military, and worrying that maybe we devote too much to it i just remember Russia.. They basically ran their country into the ground trying to become a military superpower and look at them now.. A country known for nothing more than its Vodka... pathetic.- Peck3277, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6I find it amusing to see a 21 year old calling a nation once one of the greatest countries in the world - and not doing too bad still - pathetic. Good work
- utahnkid, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Are you kidding? The fact that I'm 21??? Thats it? The crutch of your rebuttal to what i said is based on the fact that I'm 21?? I'm pretty sure you just committed some kind of logical fallacy by attacking me and not anything I said... I've been to Russia.. Ive been to China.. (not ireland yet, I'm not a big drinker ;) and trust me.. Russia is struggling in a BIG way. Oh and while I'm at it??? I'm gonna call out Rome as well. Yeah you heard me.. ROME. As in used to own most of he world??? Yeah thats right a 21 year old telling you that Rome aint too special anymore.. Suck it
- caponumen, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Japan has the same problem.
- BabyWookie, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2If the only thing that you know about Russia is vodka, that's your problem, not Russia's. Russia once built the second largest empire that has ever existed and is widely recognized as a major contributor to the world's cultural and scientific heritage. Currently, they are still trying to recover from being raped by the Bolsheviks for 70 years, but they are making great strides. Their economy and living standards have been improving exponentially in the recent years.
- Peck3277, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6I find it amusing to see a 21 year old calling a nation once one of the greatest countries in the world - and not doing too bad still - pathetic. Good work
- jeexbit, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2US has no money for war - or won't, soon, at any rate...
- Peck3277, on 01/22/2008, -0/+126.702554886% is the percentage of Russian and American people in the world. I'm not Russian nor American but if nukes were to go off my country (Ireland) which is neutral would suffer. Not just economically I mean people would die. All because 6.7% of the world were at odds with each other. I expect about 93.3% of the people in the world don't want to get tied up in this *****
- benighted, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0bluffing
- Hangly, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1that's why they call it nuclear poker
- nastronomical, on 01/22/2008, -4/+1Libs and cowards please STFU. Cry babying about a subject matter that requires logic is not the way to discuss this matter. For a sec please put a damper on your beta male over emotional state. The Rus will never launch a premp on the USA. They would be destroyed. This like the launch of their new missle is nothing but hog wash. The new missle is actually quite old! Thank god we dont have any emotional bitches in the whitehouse. If we did the USA wouldnt have existed pass it's 1st Birthday. Btw...lets be real here. The ruskies may launch 1000 missles...what do you think the failure rate will be? We are talking about a country that builds Jets it cannot afford for its own Airforce...LOL.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Hey, dumbass, Russia probably noticed that the USA attacked a nation that not only had no weapons but was in no way a threat to the USA. That is why they want to make it clear that they WILL nuke the ***** out of us if we attack them. They have every right and are correct to make that message clear.
- xNaquada, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2even if the failure rate is 90% (which it most certainly is NOT) you dont think 100 nukes will destroy america?...lets see... 20 major cities... 8 carrier groups.... what else is left.... about 70 nukes....USA urban and military centres would be glass, and so would russia's, and then we would have a nice long nuclear winter.
For someone who touts logic, clearly your mind lacks it.
Now go back to watching fox news. - nirav72, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Nastronomical is a dumbass. This is the exact kind of attitude that will bring end to humanity one day.
- chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Hey, dumbass, Russia probably noticed that the USA attacked a nation that not only had no weapons but was in no way a threat to the USA. That is why they want to make it clear that they WILL nuke the ***** out of us if we attack them. They have every right and are correct to make that message clear.
- acontorer, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Remember the value of nuclear weapons lies in the ability to say "don't make me use these, I just might!" If Russia felt no one believed they would use their weapons, a little fear-refresher adds a lot of value to the weapons at very little cost.
- progressive, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Sorry Mr Putin, this won't make your penis any bigger
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by