do people today understand what war with Russia would mean?

[Douglas Carpenter]

Even some opponents of military intervention talk as we were debating whether or not to invade Panama. The idea of engaging Russia in military action far exceeds the issue of invading Iraq or even Iran. A military strike against Russian forces would place the world in a state of parallel far, far more dangerous as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Only a crackpot or madman would even consider such a course of action. I rejoice that there is no crackpot or madman currently sitting in the White House who would even consider for one single second such an action.

Could it actually be possible that some people have forgotten what war with Russia would likely escalate to?

[brush]

1. WWlll is what it would become.

And who's to know if the planet would survive?

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. that would be all too likely

[yuiyoshida]

57. NOT ONLY THAT...

but unlike WORLD WAR II, people here would assume the bombs and soldiers would never reach our shores. We are not exactly immune to invasion. People here would freak out if places like New York, Boston or Miami were filled with Russian soldiers after an attack that would kill so many. Hell, A russian sub could park off the UNITED STATES and launch Nukes into the country, and not just one or two.. DOZENS of missiles. Life as we know it... would change so drastically, people would be fleeing to find cover...

[30cal]

63. behind every blade of grass

[proudretiredvet]

64. You are right as far as you went.

but you went about three feet on a hundred yard field.
MAD Mutually assured destruction and having a large military as a deterrent force has kept this kind of thing from happening in the past.
Now, not so much.
We should not be getting into a war over what is going on there right now. There is a question of if this would have happened at all under older lines of thought, military manning, and forward positioning.

[yuiyoshida]

65. NO one..and I MEAN no one...

wants to relish and languish in blood shed. ALL ONE has to do is remember Hiroshima.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

68. There are warmongers who want to send young men to war.

And a lot of them were clueless about the destruction. Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense when Vietnam was escalated into a major unnecessary war, and he is absolutely clueless in his memoirs as to how that happened, like he had nothing to do with it.

People like General Eisenhower were well aware of the horrendous costs of war.

[proudretiredvet]

85. it did happen as a direct result of the

Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I do not know what your point is. They started a war that they could not win. No one likes this kind of death event but no one on this side of the big water started that mess.
Do you have an expectation that when there is an unwarranted sneak attack that kills thousands of Americans on their own soil there should be no reaction.
Or are you of the opinion that we should not try to win the wars that others start with us.
I'm really not understanding you point in this.

[yuiyoshida]

88. so you are of the opinon when the

Russians invade us, than we can go kick their asses, but not before? Well, I do not think they will be landing any time soon, nor..should we intervene in the mess there now. Unless YOU WANT MIAMI to look like Hiroshima.

[proudretiredvet]

93. Your points are always circular arguments that end up spiraling down the drain.

I have stated several time in DU that we should not get into this mess.
I have also stated that the reason it happened is that we are now perceived as weak and cowardly by the world when it comes to using our military.
We prevented many dictators from expansionism with MAD, mutually assured destruction, and by having forward stationed military personnel and resources to deter situations just like this from happening.
We no longer play that role on the world stage.
If you believe that it is going to be a better world with China, Russia, and to a lesser level Iran and North Korea determining the direction of our world then that is your right.
I do not believe that is what is best for the world. I see high likelihood of loss of freedom and life not far down the road on several fronts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. In WWII, Nazi subs went up the Mississippi River and around Florida.

My dad was stationed at Eglin AFB (I think) near Tampa and they saw Nazis subs all the time.
They were told to watch them and not do anything.

In fact, he got a commendation on his discharge record for the "American Theater" of war as well as the European Theater. I find that quite interesting, as the civilian populace didn't know there was an American Theater of war.

They would probably have freaked out and run for Canada.

More little known bits of history.

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. i read an article about the defenses used in protecting San Francisco Bay....

They were quite extensive. Nets pulled all the way across the Golden Gate inlet - huge, complex devices pulled by tugboats to put them in place.

Fascinating.

[Maedhros]

71. During the first several months of 1942 the most dangerous waterway in the world

was the Gulf Coast from Houston to Miami.

Between mid-January 1942 and the end of June, U-boats sank 397 ships--171 off the east coast of the Unites States, 62 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean Sea.

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/uboats/uboatspg1.htm

[proudretiredvet]

87. How about the islands off of Alaska?

The Japanese invaded one of our islands there and built a military base. We bombed them daily as weather allowed and mounted an assault to take our island back but the Japanese had withdrawn at night in a big storm.
It is a myth that there was no invasion of American territory by the Japanese during WWII.

[Angleae]

89. Actually it was two islands, Attu and Kiska.

Kiska is the one you referred to. Retaking Attu got bloody.

[proudretiredvet]

90. Thanks for the information

[Boom Sound 416]

91. U-boats shut down the st Lawrence too

[WhiteTara]

101. They tested an ICBM missile that could reach the US today.

It would a real horror here...not just theme music and back after the break.

[aristocles]

2. Go to Google Search

Search on "Tsar Bomba".

[Fumesucker]

3. ...

[JJChambers]

14. The displacement of the clouds is hauntingly beautiful

[Locrian]

34. yep, pretty much that...

[MannyGoldstein]

62. If that's in real time

It's from about three miles away.

Wow.

[Adrahil]

5. While I agree, I'm left wondering...

... Are we left with just the option of letting Putin do whatever he wants? What if he invades Poland next?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. there is no reason to believe he is going to invade Poland. Risking thermonuclear war

over the Ukraine is madness beyond imagination. Suggesting it as an option is pure unadulterated evil. I can't get over how the kooks and crackpots that have shown up on DU over the past few days suggesting just that. There are many diplomatic approaches to address this issue. Amazing how the nuts are moving so quickly to push for nuclear apocalypse without even wanting to try diplomacy.

[jsr]

9. Only crazy assholes would contemplate it as a viable option.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Dominionists that believe America is SUPPOSED to be the catalyst OF the "End of Days"

You'd be surprised how many believe that....

[RKP5637]

54. Sadly that is true, by these damn fools. If they want to die so badly, let them do

themselves in, but they need to spare us their Idiocracy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. thats the problem....they don't think "we die"....

they think all the other "brown, tan, yellow and or especially Muslim"...will ALL die....oh yeah and all of the Jews will die too except for the remaining "144,000" who will immediately "convert" upon seeing the face of Jesus...

[defacto7]

56. ^ this ^

Dominionists are the real enemies. They destroy us from within with a weapon far greater than a nuke... Stupidity.

[ladjf]

80. At some point, religionists are going to have to be muzzled. They are already

a serious threat to life on Earth. nt

[Adrahil]

17. We don't have any military options in Ukraine...

But I'm still left asking the question.... So he just get to do this?

[chrisa]

39. He wouldn't - that would be beyond stupid.

Poland is a member of the EU and NATO. Launching an attack on Poland would be declaring war on the entire EU and the US. Plus, Russian forces would have to go through Belarus to get to Poland, making it pretty obvious that they were going to attack. It wouldn't end well.

Putin is power-hungry, not psychotic.

[Adrahil]

42. Poland is, obviously, an exaggeration.... at least for now, but...

... it still seems many here are perfectly willing to let him goggle up his closest neighbors. Frankly, that bugs me. For the "peace at any price" crowd, I'm just wondering if there is any trigger. A thread here showed a shocking number of people here who would not be willing to go to war to protect even our closest allies. I was honestly dismayed.

[Maedhros]

104. I think you are mischaracterizing the anti-war argument.

We're arguing against war-as-diplomacy, because we don't buy Clausewitz' maxim.

It sucks that Russia may annex Ukraine, but the United States simply cannot take military action in response and have any hope of success. It would simply make a bad situation worse.

Of course there are "triggers" that can make waging war the proper response: an existential threat to the United States, for example, or to one of our NATO allies (since we are bound by treaty to protect each other).

[2banon]

113. asking about Poland or asking what's he's doing in Ukraine?

He gets to do "this" in Ukraine and Georgia is already happened. If he has his sights on Poland it would involve nuclear war. I don't seriously believe he intends to go there.

[bemildred]

10. Putin is not that stupid.

And he just got handed his ass when his guy got chased our of town. He will take the parts that want to rejoin Russia, the parts he can take without fighting, as a consolation prize, and let the EU/US do as they like with the rest, all the while protected by control of the gas spigot.

If he tries to take it all, he will have a guerilla war on his hands.

[Adrahil]

19. I suspect you're right...

... That's what I've been saying. This is South Ossetia 2.0

But he needs to pay a price. The EU has to grow a backbone.

[bemildred]

21. Yep.

I don't see how the EU/US can do much of anything about it, other than make noise.

[Adrahil]

22. They could make it hurt economically...

... But I doubt they will.

[bemildred]

23. Anything they do will hurt them worse, Pooty-Poot has better leverage.

And Pooty-Poot comes from weakness. He has shown in the past a firm grip on what fights to skip. I'm more worried that the US government will freak out, try to prove something.

[Adrahil]

25. So far the US has not been rash, but...

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

... we need to torpedo any kind of trade agreement with Moscow, cut existing trade, IMO, and boycott the G8 summit scheduled for Sochi later this year.

[bemildred]

28. I have some faith in Obama, he seems "real world",

but the government is full of crazy politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats who think only of their careers. It's classic upper class decadence.

So I'd feel a lot better if we had better people in charge. As it is, we invade countries to make money, and to raise political capital at home (Wag the Dog), etc. so expecting what they do to make sense can mislead. They do things which are really bad for the nation all the time because they are really good for their careers in "public service".

[defacto7]

60. Unfortunately

the only thing economic sanctions would do is hurt the everyday people. Economic sanctions tend to make oligarchs richer and the military stronger. There's a lot of money and resources in Russia. It would take decades to make any difference with decades of pain for the populous and WWIII would start over that anyway.

Dealing with Russia is a very different animal.

[PFunk]

29. Normally I would agree. However this is Putin.

And for him, sometimes sanity gets replaced by russian pride getting back at the west pushing him to do something stupid. Still I hope he does do what you say. Not only to avoid a guerrilla war but also becoming a global economic pariah. After all no country's economy can sustain a prolonged war, especially a global one (just look at what the idiotic War on Terror did to the US').

But sadly it also means we may see a new cold war emerging because of this.

[bemildred]

31. Anybody can have a brain fart. So yeah, he is not immune.

On the other hand, he's been around a while, watched our troubles in Afghanistan, Iraq, close up, and has his own in the Caucasus.

The best way to avoid war would be some long, candid face-to-face conversations.

I think the other guy is right that we will "impose" penalties of some sort, purely symbolic of course.

[madokie]

12. Look at what Russia had to do when we invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq

I say our only option is to negotiate

War is not pretty

[Scootaloo]

59. Really?

Do we really need this sort of brainless scaremongering?

Just photoshop a toothbrush moustache on him and call it a day if that's what you're doing.

[Adrahil]

74. I realize this requires a bit of subtle thinking....

... but it's not like I think he will actually invade Poland. This is an intellectual exercise about boundaries. At what point would be be compelled to act directly?

[Hippo_Tron]

70. You're assuming the options are a full-scale war or letting Putin do whatever he wants

If Putin invaded Poland (and he won't) there would be a resistance heavily armed by the west that would make the country impossible to occupy.

[Adrahil]

72. If you read my other posts, I'm not.

But I am afraid that Putin is perfectly willing to pay a short term economic or political price as the cost of doing business for becoming a "Superpower" again.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Exerting hard power willy nilly is no way to become a "Superpower"

The fact that Putin had to invade in order to get his way shows that his influence is diminishing, not increasing.

[Adrahil]

79. I somewhat agree,

if I didn't make that clear. I think he's got a ho-hum economy, and his new "customs union" hasn't exactly been a run-away success. I do think this is a effort to refocus his attempts to expand focus. But I also think it's symptom of Putin's weakness. As a "muscular leader," his instinct when things are slipping is to apply a little of that muscle.

And, course, it's not 1982. I think this action will actually weaken Putin internationally, ultimately. But it is STILL very dangerous.

[go west young man]

112. I didn't realize they weren't a superpower now.

Nuclear-Weapon States:

The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. Although the treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, it also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, most of the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons. Russia and the United States also retain thousands of retired warheads planned for dismantlement, not included here.

China: About 240 total warheads.

France: Fewer than 300 operational warheads.

Russia: Approximately 1,480 deployed strategic warheads [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates Russia has another 1,022 nondeployed strategic warheads and approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads. Additional thousands are awaiting dismantlement.

United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.

United States: Approximately 5,113 nuclear warheads [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States deploys 1,654 strategic nuclear warheads on 792 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

[jwirr]

7. One result may be from the fact that back in the cold war we produced most of what we needed

in this country and we had a good economy. Not so today. A war would not be so easy. We would have to rely on the rest of the world (many who do not like us anymore) for those things

[MineralMan]

8. There's not going to be any war with Russia.

That isn't happening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I agree. It just makes my jaw drop that there are a few kooks here on DU trying to push for it

as if this was no more challenging than invading Panama

[MineralMan]

13. Just ignore them. They have no idea what they're talking about.

They're just trying to stir things up to see what floats to the top.

[aristocles]

15. That's why I referenced Tsar Bomba.

No national leader can be so stupid as to imagine war with a global superpower is worth starting or winnable.

[MineralMan]

20. That, and our economic interests.

We have economic ties to Russia. We have few to Ukraine. We're not going to screw with that situation.

[paleotn]

16. I think some who should know better have forgotten....

...and many now are far too young to remember those days. I well remember duck and cover drills in school, until the powers that be rightly figured out it wouldn't really matter anyway and ended the practice. They don't know that for many years, SAC kept B-52s armed with nuclear weapons in the air 24 / 7 / 365, awaiting a Soviet attack. The Cuban missile crises is just before my time as I didn't show up until 1964, but unbeknownst to us we did survive Able Archer...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/able-archer-scare/

....accidentally loading a practice tape at NORAD (yes, we used magnetic tape in those days.) A bad computer chip again at NORAD. The Thule B-52 crash.

http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

And numerous undisclosed accidents, screw ups and close calls on both sides. I remember once believing that nuclear war was inevitable so what the fuck, hope that your killed in initial attack, because you sure as hell don't want to live in what's left. Live for today, for tomorrow we're instantly transformed into nuclear fallout. But then the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed and fragmented. But unfortunately, we're all still sitting on short, intermediate and long range nuclear weapons, enough to end human civilization many times over.

So when I hear anyone advocate any kind of armed conflict with Russia anywhere, that's instinctively an arse tightening of about 10.5! Oh Shit! Have they lost their fucking minds?!! What starts as a conventional intervention in Ukraine, could easily escalate to short range, tactical nukes, just by accident. Many of us know what happens then. The war plans for dealing with a nuclear exchange in Europe are still on file at the Pentagon and the Kremlin. Those plans note that a nuclear exchange of any kind, due to the number of casualties, sheer horror and human instinct to strike back are apt to escalate out of control, thus attempts to slow that progression are built in as much as possible, but are noted as more than likely to fail. So be best course of action has always been to avoid direct confrontation with the Russians if at all possible and the Russians feel exactly the same about open conflict with the US.

So until we have absolute and total nuclear disarmament globally, to even think of ANY level of military conflict with Russia is absolutely and totally nuts. Anyone who even brings that up should be immediately drummed out of office and checked into a good psychiatric hospital.

I think Carl Sagan once again put it best in describing the nuclear situation in the early 80's, but that still exists between the US and Russia..

"Imagine a room awash in gasoline, and there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has nine thousand matches, the other seven thousand matches. Each of them is concerned about who's ahead, who's stronger."

Lets not go there again, folks. We really don't want to go back to the bad old days.

[aristocles]

18. +1,000,000

[bemildred]

26. +1. We need to finish what we started in the 1970s.

Make this country a REAL democracy.

[sarge43]

35. This old cold warrior has just one question

Is there anything on this planet worth destroying it for?

If those nuclear dragons are let loose, they will burn everything to ash.

As I said all during the Cold War, I hope I stay on Ground Zone and those who advocated and started the Horror are not. They should experience The Day After.

[dionysus]

82. reminds me of this gem from 2007;

[Javaman]

24. And here we are living in the 100th year anniversary of the First World War...

which started when a nothing anarchist killed a fop of an archduke slated to become king.

[exboyfil]

76. And 75 years since another madman

invaded Poland after seizing Austria and Czechoslovakia without the west lifting a finger.

Republicans in Congress, including a group who wanted to reorient American foreign policy away from Europe and toward Asia, howled that the Truman administration had "lost" China.

How will Obama view his historical place? I hope he does not act with our military, but he does have some historical context that may motivate him.

[FarCenter]

27. See "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition" by Samuel Glasstone, and Philip J. Dolan

It is available on line.

In the 50s and 60s major telecommunications lines were routed 20 to 30 miles around all metro areas because it was assumed that the metro areas would no longer exist after the initial attacks.

By the late '60s it didn't really matter because of the larger number of available warheads.

[packman]

30. Should have listened to Glenn Beck

and bought my gold and survival supplies. Today I am going to start digging in my backyard for the bunker I will buy for the day the skies begin to light up. Also, I am going to subscribe to that service that will deliver water and food when the Apocalypse begins. I can just see my mailman delivering those goods thru the devastated and nuclear wasteland.
Now I need to go out and get me some guns to defend my family and myself from my neighbors.

[aristocles]

33. You're either being sarcastic or missing the...

...point of this thread's discussion.

[packman]

44. Sarcasm , yes, missing the point-

No, just that there is another point in this. There are many, many people in America who are probably viewing this as justification in buying all that survival gear and moving to the hinterlands to prepare for this coming of the end. The Christian right is probably salivating and looking for Biblical support and the Survivalist are counting their bullets. The biblical struggle between the Eagle (the US) and the Bear (Russia) is being played out in their minds.

And that is scary

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. YEP ^^^^ people do NOT take these nutters serious enough....they have invaded

all aspect of our society now....(Seven Mountains). They literally believe that the US was created to become the catalyst for their fun little "Left Behind" game. But first all hell has to break lose to mark the "End of Days" in their Mad Max apocalyptic wet dream.

[niyad]

32. some of us understand all too well, and the thought that there are people advocaitng for this

insanity makes me ill. I remember the cuban missile crisis, the endless anxiety. and I remember the insanity of "duck and cover"-- revived years later as "duct and cover". seems like some are simply not capable of learning.

[randome]

36. Not if we send Skittles. He likes kicking ass.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Skittles]

51. SCHEDULING RANDOME FOR ASS KICKING

FOR CLAIMING I AM A MAN

[chrisa]

37. There won't be a war with Russia. We're not even close. This is theater.

First of all, Russia would stomp our military in Eastern Europe, not counting EU resistance. Secondly, Ukraine is mostly siding with Russia anyways. Ukraine has no worth to us.

The "repercussions" Obama is talking about are toothless sanctions just to let Putin know that he can't do whatever he wants. It's pretty silly to think the US would go to war with Russia over something so minor and unrelated to us.

[Blue_Tires]

38. Anyone seriously pushing for war must be

playing too much Battlefield 4 in their spare time

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. maybe it's all the X-boxes that people got at Christmas

it is clearly not anything rooted in reality

[YOHABLO]

40. Most people in the U.S. are not at all concerned .. if they even know the gravity of this.

My experience has been, when discussing all things ''political'', that most people are ignorant of U.S. history and politically illiterate. They're too busy tweeting and texting and ''friending". It's way too pathetic .. and it bothers me that so many U.S. citizens are oblivious to the consequeces of a nuclear confrontation. I honestly believed we were on a road to a more sane world .. perhaps I am wrong.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. A lot more money to the MIC and a lot of dead people.

[Igel]

45. Invade whom? Or what?

Russia?

Sure, that would certainly lead to severe problems.

So is the choice between invading Russia and doing nothing?

Naw.

I don't know what I'd like to see happen, but I can imagine more scenarios.

Putting NATO or US troops on the border. Don't fire a shot. Don't try to "retake" ground. Just be there. What would Russia do--and if it did overrun American or NATO positions, would it be the US's fault? In other words, up the ante.

Or just sending troops and not saying where they are. Let the media do the reporting, but move them. Russia will be guessing where they are. But make it clear that if they're assaulted, which includes having Russian troops limit their freedom of movement or communication, they will defend themselves. Up the ante, but not so much.

Sending supplies to Ukraine. We do it for Syrian rebels in an armed insurgency against a leader considered legitimate until there was a more appealing alternative. Why not to Ukraine?

Except in this case make the supplies nifty Stingers and Patriot batteries, tanks and fighters--perhaps with pilots. Or loan a mine-layer to Ukraine for use off Ukraine's territorial waters.

Lots of things that can be done the purpose of which is to set up trip-wires. Putin does anything that triggers them, he does something to trigger them and snatching the "I'm the aggressor" ball for his own court.

Then there are more interesting options. Start routinely publishing photos showing Russian troop movements and locations. Intercepts of phone calls. All the nasty spy-stuff that we might be able to do--assuming that we have fall-backs or the information isn't traceable or can't be blocked in the future.

Lots of choices other than just invading Russia and starting WWIII. But all of them entail some risk, which obviously a lot of people aren't willing to take. Belief without action, that's the ticket.

Right now the main goal in the West appears to be CYA and posturing. If you're flat-footed and care about results, those are pointless. It's like making pointless threats when a woman's about to be raped, and saying how rough the courts will be on the perp--but, really, it's not our problem and we're not going to do much about it except point out that rape is illegal. Honestly, the woman doesn't much care about the pointless threats--she wants to prevent the rape. And the rapist figures that he can get away with it and its something he wants.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. placing U.S. troops in a manner that looks like a possible military strike on Russia would probably

escalate to direct conflict and most likely thermonuclear war and the death of hundreds of millions of people - or at least gravely run that risk.

[kelly1mm]

53. How about giving Ukraine back the nukes they gave up in return for US/UK guarantee

of their territorial integrity? If we are not going to hold up our end of the bargain why should they? That way they can defend themselves.

[The Masked Shrike]

83. Uh, no.

Yes, a regional nuclear war would've been much more preferable. Ukraine is not part of NATO. The reason being this current scenario was VERY likely and everyone knew it. The Crimea should never have been given to Ukraine--that would've forestalled the whole confrontation.

[kelly1mm]

84. Question: Did we (US and UK) say that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons we would garantee

their territorial integrity? If so, and if their territorial integrity has been violated, should we fulfill our promise to intervene? If not, should they not be able to rearm?

Or, is your position that we (US and UK) get to say that despite you giving up your nuclear weapons and despite our promise to defend you due to that action, well, we just don't feel like getting involved. Sorry that you trusted us. Is that really your position?

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. it would be the sane and rational position. - Only a dangerous kook would want to up the nuclear

ante and likely inspire a nuclear exchange given the current tensions. If the U.S. provided the Ukraine with nuclear weapons pointed at them - Russia would respond the same way the U.S. responded when the Soviet Union provided Cuba with nuclear weapons pointed at us.

And just when did the U.S./U.K.guarantee military intervention with potential nuclear war in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty in the Crimea?

ANYONE supporting what you are suggesting - but, I sincerely hope only in jest or to make some obtuse but disingenuous point - is either a psychopathic crackpot, a naïve child too young or too infantile to remember the once very real possibility of global nuclear holocaust or they are simply just pure unadulterated evil.

[kelly1mm]

106. You asked "And just when did the U.S./U.K.guarantee military intervention with potential

nuclear war in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty in the Crimea?" In 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. it is beyond the imagination of any sane or rational person that anyone would push for war

or a likely nuclear exchange knowing that we would quite possibly see the loss of millions and millions of lives. There is no way the Russia Federation would quietly wait while a neighboring country who they are now on hostile terms with is nuclear armed by Britain and America. This would mean at the very least total war between America and Russia. What evil madman would want that? If the attempt to nuclear arm the Ukraine led to a conventional war - rather than a nuclear war - how on earth is the U.S.snd/or the UK going to deploy a force of troops and equipment to the region that would at minimum have to be ten times that sent to Iraq in 2003 at the cost of trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars and most likely the loss of millions and millions of lives. I rejoice that there is no crackpot or madman currently sitting in the White House and very few in Congress or any positions of power who would even consider for one single second such an action.

[kelly1mm]

109. So, basically, Ukraine was a bunch of dupes to trust the US/UK and give up its nukes?

Do you think that Russia would have taken Crimea if Ukraine still had its nukes?

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. if you are actually serious and it really is necessary to explain why we can't go to war with Russia

to defend Ukrainian sovereignty in ethnic Russian dominated Crimea or provide nuclear weapons for this conflict - If you are not being ironic and just trying to make some obtuse but less than literal point - Then it is very important for your own good that you until you can understand basic reality issues that you no longer form opinions on any matters or make any decisions. You must find a mature and stable adult to make all your decisions for you and try to explains things to you. Not everyone has the moral or intellectual skills to form opinions or make decisions. If you genuinely are serious then for your own good you must face reality and accept that you need mature and responsible supervision

[kelly1mm]

111. Thanks for the advice. So, was the Ukraine a bunch of dupes to trust the US/UK to live

up to the promises made if it gave up its nukes? Do you think Russia would have invaded Crimea if Ukraine still had its nukes?

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. I'm guessing your are a youngster and kids your age simply have no idea what war with Russia would

mean - so you say crazy things like this. NO THEY WERE NOT DUPES. The U.S. and the U.K. never promised war with Russia. The agreement was certifying a Russian promise. NOBODY in the Ukraine expected America and the British to go to war with Russia and you certainly don't hear anyone from Ukraine claiming that America and Britain let them down be not launching a World War that would likely kill millions of them. The leaders of Ukraine certainly knew that the U.S and the U.K were OBVIOUSLY not going to launch a war that would likely cost millions of lives to defend Russia sovereignty over a region that has almost a two to one majority of ethnic Russians. THERE ARE OTHER METHODS OF COERSION BESIDES WAR OR NUKES , YOU KNOW. You do know that, don't you? So no the Ukrainians were not so stupid that they thought that America and Britain were going to launch World War III to defend Ukrainian control over Crimea. They were not that dumb - nobody is.

There was never any question that at the end of the cold war that the former Soviet Republics other than Russia would not be maintaining a nuclear arsenal. That was never going to happen.

The whole conversation about whether or not to launch a war or provoke a war with Russia by providing the Ukraine with nukes is so kooky. I can't believe I'm having it with anyone - especially on a liberal website. But, I guess a lot of kids these days are just jaw droppingly naive about life and just don't know very much about the world.

[kelly1mm]

115. I disagree and think they were dupes for trusting us. And with the

subsequent knowledge that if you have nuclear weapons you can do whatever you want militarily against non-nuclear nations without reprisal (and the converse that without nuclear weapons you are at the whim of nuclear armed aggressors) will lead to many more nations at least considering being nuclear armed. If I was Japan, South Korea, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine and other nations with the technical know-how to produce nukes I would seriously consider producing them ASAP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

116. are the Ukrainians claiming that America and Britain duped them by not launching war against Russia?

Does ANYONE really want millions of their own people killed in a war that Britain and the U.S. would quite likely lose anyway?

Is ANYONE so naïve and ignorant about the world that they think Japan, South Korea, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, are in the same position as Crimea?

[The Masked Shrike]

100. Yes

Unfortunately, we can not guarantee their territory. I think the idea was to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, which was expressly formed to stop the Soviets (Russians) from taking over all of Europe. However, the Ukraine is too ethnically diverse and split politically to have formed an internal consensus to join NATO or the EU. They are split between clinging to Russia vs. stronger ties with the West. We would be intervening in a civil war. Similar to Vietnam--except with nuclear weapons. A LOT of nuclear weapons. I grew up during the cold war and nuclear war scares the beejeezus out of me. Most of Europe is not going to sacrifice angering their major energy supplier (Russia), so the US would be largely on its own. So, yes, the Ukrainians are on their own. The older I get, the more I view war as almost always making things worse.

I know US and UK diplomats made promises, but I do not believe there was a formal treaty ratified by the Senate. In all likelihood, the Ukraine will be broken up along ethnic lines, similar to a lot of eastern Europe, and then a smaller, more cohesive Ukraine could be bound more tightly to the west.

[kelly1mm]

107. I believe you may be correct in the eventual outcome in Ukraine. I do think that our reneging on

our agreement and the subsequent knowledge that if you have nuclear weapons you can do whatever you want militarily against non-nuclear nations without reprisal (and the converse that without nuclear weapons you are at the whim of nuclear armed aggressors) will lead to many more nations at least considering being nuclear armed. If I was Japan, South Korea, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine and other nations with the technical know-how to produce nukes I would seriously consider producing them ASAP.

[jimlup]

47. We are no where near this and while it bears discussion remember that is just that right now...

As citizens we here especially can appreciate that the leader in the White House is a rational actor who has surrounded himself with people who actually understand the stakes.

[mythology]

48. I highly doubt it would result in nuclear war

Simply put, there can be no winner in nuclear war. It's why the only time anybody dropped one as a weapon was when only one country had them.

But let's say you're right and we twiddle our thumbs while Russia takes over Ukraine. What happens if Putin decides to reclaim influence over Poland and the countries of the former Yugoslavia? If we buy your premise, we can simply continue to twiddle our thumbs.

If you say that we can't do anything now because there might be a negative outcome, then you are effectively saying that we can never do anything. But if that logic were to apply, then Russia would be equally afraid of a war with us because they would get nuked just as much.

That said, there are a number of other steps that can be taken that is short of full out war that go beyond doing nothing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. during the entire history of the cold war everyone knew that direct hot war was not an option

short of a direct land invasion of Western Europe . Everyone knew that direct land war between the west and the Soviet Union would likely escalate to nuclear level. The Russians were forced to accept in the 90's American/NATO intervention well inside the former Soviet sphere of influence. There is no way that the Russians will accept direct American military intervention in the former Soviet Union directly on their boarder. Furthermore the sure logistics of deploying enough American and/or NATO forces would itself be a massive and extremely dangerous adventure again risking escalation to nonconventional levels. There are many other options to place pressure and punitive actions on Russia. Fortunately, our current White House is taking that approach.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. No,

no they do not.

And I will add, as much as Putin is the aggressor here, he is also very aware and not a mad man. As long as we all have rational actors in charge...

IMHO this is less dangerous than N. Korea.

My fear is a miscalculation and the guns of august are back in business, just with nukes this time.

[defacto7]

61. I agree with you on N. Korea. n/t

[proudretiredvet]

95. I agree with what you say from the position we are in right now.

But in this I hope our leaders do clearly see that there is high value in forward deployment and deterrence. It is always cheaper to deter an armed engagement than to have to redeploy and fight.
Putin knows that President Obama will not order any kind of armed response to his invasion as long as it doesn't blow up into a bigger conflict.
The main miscalculation that is up front in my mind right now is if the NK punk leader decides he can get away with a big one too because he believes we will fail to respond to his aggression as well.
If the NK's did start pushing with military force I'm sure Obama would feel the need to change the worlds perception of his total lack of military resolve and engage NK very quickly.
There are also some islands that China and Japan are pissing and moaning about right now. We have sided with Japan but China may decide that those commitments are hollow and not a threat.
Then there is another pissing contest going about other islands that both China and the Philippines claim. Again we took the side against China but things do happen when power shifts.
Right now the world balance of power does not have a firm and broad foundation. Many things could trigger it's collapse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Why quietly you will see the cuts reversed

as well as the A-10 rise from the proverbial ashes. IMHO of course.

[proudretiredvet]

98. Protecting our country and standing by the agreements we have made with other nations

Is not a right wing of left wing agenda. It is about our national security, the security of our allies, and the future of our nation and our people.
If we chose to make changes then they should be well thought out by those who are involved and knowledgeable and not for political reasons by the ignorant and inexperienced. President Obama needs to fire his international advisers and find some that have real world knowledge and then he needs to listen to them.
Putin has come out on top in every encounter of international wills in the recent past. Putin is smart and fully understands world affairs and the power structure in the different areas of the world. He is not restricted by political opposition or expectations in Russia. Basically he can and does do what he decides is best.
Putin is playing real world "Risk" and we are playing Washington DC political Monopoly. I do not have a grasp of if this is going to turn out well or not.

Since I've stirred the pot this much let me add one more thought.
Over the last very few years we have experienced the biggest purge of our nations military leadership in the history of our nation. I believe that this was done for ideological reasons by our president. I am not at all comfortable with that. He may have cleaned the house of those who did not agree with him but he also discarded thousands of years of accumulated knowledge about world affairs. I think he needs that knowledge and our current situation could be just the beginning of the consequence of its absence.
When you are the most powerful man in the world surrounding yourself with all "Yes Men" creates a dangerous situation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. It was not a purge

you had officers questioning civilian leadership, see McChrystal. That is a consequence of the building of a praetorian guard.

You are a vet, so you will exactly understand what I am about to say. Militaries tend to prepare to fight the last war. The last war was pretty much low intensity, counterinsurgency. Why the cuts were directed in the way they were. Europe was an ex theater. What potentially we are facing right now is high intensity warfare, total war even. There are many parallels to the US before WW II. We had fought many banana wars in Central America, such as going after Sandino. The US had to relearn a lot of the lessons of high intensity war. And that it did, starting in North Africa with Operation Torch.

That included the officer corp. Many one stars were canned during the first two years of the war. The Navy went from a gentleman's club to a fighting force with many junior officers going all the way to flag. If we have another ground war in Europe COIN does not work, and all the lessons that our units have forgotten, they will have to re-learn, and that will be a problem for both treasure and blood. It gets worst. near worst case scenario we will see multiple calls, from multiple nations for a general draft.

Suffice it to say the last opposed mass landing was at Inchon. That is over fifty years ago.

[defacto7]

66. There's a tendency...

well, more of an national habit or hubris to think in the extreme as if the choices are always either war, no war or somewhere in between. There is another path that is always unreasonably abhorrent to Americans. It is to do nothing militarily or economically because there is logically no other choice. Economic sanctions would only make the people suffer, the oligarchs richer and the military stronger. We are not talking about all those other poor countries we have stepped on, we are talking about a massive country with a lot of money (in the hands of oligarchs) and huge resources. Russia is a completely different animal than anything we have dealt with since WWII and they were our allies then.

There is a time to say... we can't do anything except denouncing their actions with the rest of the world and deal with them on a globally political scale, realizing that it is in the best interests of the world and the US. It is not weak, it is logical. It only sacrifices overtly self-righteous national ego, a sacrifice which actually wouldn't hurt us a bit.

[B Calm]

73. We don't fight countries who have nukes. That's

the reason why countries want them. .

Just send John McCain and Lindsey Graham over there, they can do it!

[stillwaiting]

75. Thanatos is a strong force in too many American minds.

I really feel like the average American harbors a sick mind. It's the product of massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing.

Way too many are narcissistic. And, some clearly have sociopathic and even psychopathic tendencies.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. Again, let me repeat.

Very few people here at DU are arguing for US military intervention in Ukraine.

Just because someone is angry at Russian's military invasion on Ukrainian soil and want such actions condemned does not mean they automatically are advocating for the US to get involved militarily.

Sheesh.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. well, you are right about it only being a few - but even among those clearly opposing war with

Russia many of them talk as if war with Russia would be just another ill advised military adventure like invading Iraq

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. That is because the last total war was over sixty years ago

Vietnam had it's moments, but really, the last major landing was Inchon, and the last total war was WW II.

The young usually do not break a history book, and all their ideas of war are based on hollywood, where we always win the war.

Yes, I am that cynical. Though I am glad my dad did not live to see this.

[Capt. Obvious]

94. Here is what the world would look like

[treestar]

97. Ok but it does raise the question

for them, war with the United States would not be a good option either. They can't just do whatever they want because we are afraid of them. I hate sounding like Sarah Palin, but there's a point where we may not be willing to put up with whatever they might want to do.

[get the red out]

102. Surely

People who would want a war with Russia are completely divorced from reality.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. even some opponents of any military action seem to think it would be like something halfway

between invading - Panama and the war in Iraq. Even if nuclear exchange was somehow avoided - we would be talking about the most catastrophic war since World War II. How is the U.S. going to deploy to the region an absolute minimum of twenty times the personnel and equipment that were deployed during the Iraq War?

[Peregrine]

105. The right and Putin want the same thing, a Cold War.

For the us this would mean increasing military spending and Putin, total power and the return of the USSR. I'm actually surprised it took this long. I expected Gorbachev to pull this off.