This wasn't actually known until after the war.
Advertisement
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:55 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:56 pm
Neoconstantius wrote:Really? NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and forward missile deployments aren't meant to contain and intimidate Russia? I think both sides need to evaluate what year it is, cuz it's not 1960.
by Memell » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:56 pm
by Alcase » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:57 pm
Memell wrote:Anyways, it's pretty entertaining to see the utter failure of the Obama administration. Lybia,Iraq,Syria, Ukraine. He is messing everything up! He messes up everything so accurately and systematically that it's like he is doing that on purpose.
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:00 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Neoconstantius wrote:Really? NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and forward missile deployments aren't meant to contain and intimidate Russia? I think both sides need to evaluate what year it is, cuz it's not 1960.
Forward missile deployments - Jesus, you act like ABMs situated along the predicted flight path of Iranian missiles are nuclear warheads pointed at Russian military bases.
Not that I'm really all that hot on the idea of a West-Iranian Cold War, but know who the fuck this shit is targeting.
And NATO expansion? Countries wanting to join a defensive pact is threatening to Russia? Why is this? Is Russia planning on invading someo-
Oh, right. Odd. Almost like these countries lining up to join NATO don't trust one of their neighbors.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:00 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:American F-15s of the 555th fighter wing, a nuclear-capable unit responsible for the Italian stockpile of B-61 nuclear bombs, were deployed to Polish bases in March of this year in response to the Crimea tensions.
by Communal Ecotopia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:00 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:01 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:American F-15s of the 555th fighter wing, a nuclear-capable unit responsible for the Italian stockpile of B-61 nuclear bombs, were deployed to Polish bases in March of this year in response to the Crimea tensions.
F-16s were deployed to a pre-existing Polish base at the request of Poland, under a pre-existing initiative meant to strengthen cooperation between the Polish and American militaries. That's hardly expansion or an attempt at 'containment'.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Communal Ecotopia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:02 pm
Garwall wrote:Korouse wrote:Putin isn't stupid enough to kill millions for a fucking piece of land not even the size of Rhode Island.
Stop sensationalizing this bullcrap.
Rhode Island thanks you for being mentioned in the same sentence as things actually important to the world. But seriously, this seems more like posturing than anything else. If Russia doesn't flash an ICBM in the West's face every so often, they start getting afraid we might forget Russia has nukes.
by Dumb Ideologies » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:03 pm
by Great Kleomentia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:03 pm
by Conserative Morality » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:07 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:I would bet my own money that the forward missile deployments were never to counter Iranian weapons. They'd have sat them in Turkey. Turkey's been perfectly happy accepting American heavy weapons for decades.
Poland was a very particular choice, to antagonise Russia. It was sold as "defending against Iran" (against missiles they didn't and don't have) because that was the talking point of the time. Russia had been out of the "ebul thweat" pool for some time given the "axis of evil" rhetoric Bush spent almost a decade spoon-feeding the west.
There's a long list of reasons why Russia opposed the move so violently.
by Great Kleomentia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:10 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons given NATO's ability to strike back - that just cripples both and is nothing even resembling a trump card.
Meanwhile, lukewarm sanctions continue to be a mild but tolerable inconvenience for Russia. Russian support continues to ensure that a decisive victory for the Ukrainian government is not possible, and overturns some of the advances made recently by the government forces. US and EU won't increase sanctions dramatically for fear of damaging economic reprisals, and won't step up assistance out of fear of the expense of being dragged into a proxy war. Ukraine will end up de facto and probably de jure split - Russia will be an overall loser in terms of the costs of sanctions and armaments versus the worth of the territory, but will be a "power-politics" winner.
It's not really a mushroom cloud sort of conflict.
by Burleson » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:11 pm
Memell wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Countries are also subject to law, such as "don't violate another country's territorial sovereignty".Burleson wrote:Putin does not have the right to protect it's "interests" if those interests violate international law and involve oppressing the Ukrainian people.
Tell me about the NSA-gate, Gladio and other stay-behinds, Pinochet and all his friends in Latin-America. Treaties and "International laws" are just chimeras, pieces of papers meant to to shut the hypocritical and bigoted public eye.
And why should he not protect Russia's interests? All the major powers of the world do it, blatantly violating any kinf of international law all the time.
[b]OOC
God Bless America
NSG's resident homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, redneck99% - Republican Party
97% - Conservative Party
92% - Constitution Party
62% - Libertarian Party
4% - Democratic Party
1% - Green Party
1% - Socialist Party
http://www.isidewith.com
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:12 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:I would bet my own money that the forward missile deployments were never to counter Iranian weapons. They'd have sat them in Turkey. Turkey's been perfectly happy accepting American heavy weapons for decades.
Poland was a very particular choice, to antagonise Russia. It was sold as "defending against Iran" (against missiles they didn't and don't have) because that was the talking point of the time. Russia had been out of the "ebul thweat" pool for some time given the "axis of evil" rhetoric Bush spent almost a decade spoon-feeding the west.
There's a long list of reasons why Russia opposed the move so violently.
If we sat them in Turkey, we'd be proper fucked - deployments in Poland were never a risk to Russia, even assuming US hostility.
"Missiles they don't have" is a falsehood - better to correctly claim "Missiles lacking the capabilities claimed" - the Shaheeb-3 exists and has the appropriate range; it's Iran's nuclear capabilities that are in question. This question, as full of old enmity and political convenience as it is, doesn't relate to Russia.
Russia acts like a jilted ex trying to find hints of his lover's misery and obsession over him in the smallest of things when in reality, they've gotten over him.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by New Comfederate States of America » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:13 pm
by Great Kleomentia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:14 pm
New Comfederate States of America wrote:As a non-interventionist who's hope include the US leaving NATO and the UN, I can say that I do not support intervention/war with Russia in Ukraine. Nor do I support entering conflicts in the Middle East either. Let them handle their own issues, but they do not pertain to me as an American.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:14 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:The movement of a nuclear fighter-bomber unit is a pretty significant political move.
by Alexandreon » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:16 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Then you've completely missed the point of politicking.
I also never said they were ever intended to actually engage Russian missiles. Besides, European states would be under threat in a Russian ICBM exchange.
I said the siting was to antagonise Russia.
"Poland is ours now".
by Imperializt Russia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:17 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:The movement of a nuclear fighter-bomber unit is a pretty significant political move.
This is the first time I've ever heard someone refer to the F-16 as a "nuclear fighter-bomber".
Like calling an M16 a supersonic long-range man-operated murder machine, it manages to be bother technically correct and completely stupid.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Serbian Empire » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:19 pm
by Conserative Morality » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:21 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:[
Then you've completely missed the point of politicking.
I also never said they were ever intended to actually engage Russian missiles. Besides, European states would be under threat in a Russian ICBM exchange.
I said the siting was to antagonise Russia.
"Poland is ours now".
I assume you meant the Shahab-3, which is an MRBM (now considered a theatre ballistic missile, probably), with a range of just 1300km.
Tomahawks have greater range.
The Iranian Shahab-3 is a single-stage, liquid-fueled, road-mobile, medium-range ballistic missile with a range of approximately 800 miles (1,280 km). A MRBM variant, sometimes called Shahab-4, has a range of more than 1,200 miles (1,930 km).
by Great Kleomentia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:21 pm
The Serbian Empire wrote:If this title says anything, I think it's time to nuke Russia into smithereens. In reality, it's far too premature to do such.
by The Orson Empire » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:22 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Floofybit, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Hwiteard, ImperialRussia, Misdainana, Spunty
Advertisement