MrFirst

You say as if Russia was going to attack someone with nuclear weapon. No one wants to commit suicide, and Russia too. But if someone attacks Russia - even with conventional weapon - Chinese, for example, - they get the retaliatory strike in response. Any potential aggressor must know he commits suicide attacking Russia. That’s the sense of nuclear weapon.
As for missile shield with a few interceptors, why do the US deploy these interceptors in Poland? May be Poland is a target for Iranian missiles? That’s doubtful. How many of interceptors will be in 10 years, or 20? Who knows.

MrFirst

In the case of “moral onus” that means no necessity to notify in advance. A moral doesn’t require a written treaty contracts.
May be I has incorrectly understood when you said Putin “wouldn't have to reduce anything- just pressure the US to reduce to a comparable level”. I just think the strategic forces are the better argument than moral high-ground. That’s all what I wished to say by my words.
I think it’s better for Russia to have no limitations on quantity and quality of missiles as the situation is being changed with creation of ABMS. That’s my personal mind. But if the US included in such possible new treaty the limitations on anti-missile system it would be sensibly to reduce the nuclear weapon to some reasonable level.
What do you mean saying “we would have already done it by now”? When? At fifties?
---------------
You, Americans, think that you “spread a democracy”. I’ve heard such statements here, in this forum, several times already. But not all people agree. What the world has in Iraq is not a democracy. This is chaos and blood. Nobody knows when it ends.
It is truly told.

highsea

Any time in the past 10 years. Russian military capability has been on a steady decline for longer than that.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Zeng

rickusn,

I don't want to argue whether Russians have picked the wrong enemy but you guys have shown here that you are always on the side of Russian's rivals in their conflicts.

Until this comments, I feel that the arguments presented by both sides are ok although I have more sympathy on the Russian side. After all, I feel that they are making more defense and you are making more offense.

I wonder if you run out of your reasons and suddenly want to change the subject to the false theory of “China threatening”.

I feel chilled for the treatment of west to Russians. Russians made great efforts to transfer itself to democracy despite it may not be an American style democracy. But west always stands on the opposite side in every conflict that Russian had with its former union members or allies. It seems that you can not accept any Russian reasons presented here. How that can be unless you real don’t want Russian well. Alex_Ivanov just want to make a point that Russia is getting better and better and I think that most of the world agrees with it. Have you ever heard that BRIC ( Brazil , Russia , India and China ) are the fastest growing countries?

The false theory of “China threatening” is also an evolving theory. You may remember a famous book:
Who Will Feed China : Wake-Up Call for a Small Planet: Who Will Feed China: Wake-Up Call for a Small Planet
The theory is that because China can not feed itself, it will be aggressive to other countries because it is hungry, it may create huge refuges to other countries or if it is rich enough to buy the food from international market, it will increase the food price so much that creates hungry in other third world countries.

If we had this WAB forum in 1995, we would be arguing about who will feed China now.

10 years later, the fact answered all questions. China becomes the World's Third Largest Food Donor in 2005:
Global Development: Views from the Center: China Now World's Third Largest Food Donor

Another famous junk book about “China threatening” is “The Coming Collapse of China” from a Chinese American written in 2001: The Coming Collapse of China
This China collapsing prophet predicted China ’s collapsing in 2006 and excited many China collapsing wishers.
You can image the chaos of China ’s collapsing to itself and the rest of the world. Several hundred billions $ of import and export evaporated, 10s or even hundreds millions refuges poured into its neighboring countries. China has to control its internal chaos by fighting with other countries to unit its people. A pretty picture, right?

If we had this WAB forum in 2001, we would be arguing about China’s collapsing in 2006 now.

Sorry for those China collapsing wishers, 2006 has passed and China had another fast growing year. I heard that this smart China collapsing prophet made a new theory that China will collapse before Beijing Olympic Game. But I didn’t personally read his writings about his new theory. If someone has a link to his new theory, could you please point it to me? Thanks.
OK, before Beijing Olympic Game, we still have time to argue about China ’s collapsing until then (8th August to 24th August 2008) if you want.

The old theory of “China threatening” is about China’s threatening the world because it is too weak and can not overcome its internal problems. It has to find an external way to solve its internal problems.

But the evolution of new theory of “China threatening” predicts that China will be too strong that its international interest will collide with other country’s international interest, China may solve its border or other conflicts using force or China may forcefully reunite Taiwan .

If you want to make argument on this new “China threatening” theory, I wonder if we can ever get a conclusion before something really happen. You really can make a lot argument here. But as a Chinese, I feel a lot more comfortable to argue with this new theory than argue with that old theory.

What I can tell you is that China is rapidly getting stronger. At same time, it becomes even more friendly to many countries. China greatly improved its relation with ASEAN countries since 2002. China is improving its relation with India , an old rival. China solved its border dispute with Russia through compromising with each other. The Sino-Japan relation is improving since new Japanese PM took stage. Even at the time of old Japanese PM, the Sino-Japan economic relation was still growing and it is far far from getting into military confrontation. China has become Japan ’s largest trade partner in 2005. Trade with China becomes one of the major factors to get Japan out from its economic stagnancy. Mainland China has also found a better way to deal with Taiwan issue and major opposing party leaders of Taiwan visited mainland China to acknowledge that they are Taiwanese as well as Chinese. Mainland China has become Taiwan ’s largest trade partner in 2003.

Sorry for my jumping in and derailing the topic. I can not stand rickusn's “China threatening” theory.

__________________
I am here for exchanging opinions.

Zeng

MrFirst,

Although you just take an example, I still feel uncomfortable about that. You can take your country for example.

China will not even attack Mongolia ; there is no reason for China to attack Russia or any other countries.

MrFirst

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you. The United States did not decide to strike USSR during Caribbean crisis in 1962, when Soviet Union had only 4 (four) ICBMs. Because mr. Kennedy was afraid to lose New-York. 10 years ago Russia had 1426 ICBMs and SLBMs with 6196 warheads totally. Even if only 5% of this amount would achieve destination the US wouldn’t exist more.

Zeng_xinren, I simply can’t imagine how Mongolia attacks Russia.
Of course it was just an example. Somebody told here about Chinese threat, so I’ve decided to use this for better demonstration. Nothing serious.

highsea

And that number is about 1/3 today.

But you made my point anyway- if the US didn't attack in 1962, why should we attack now? And if that's our intent, why are we waiting as Russia builds up her rocket forces?

Doesn't make sense, because the US has no interest in warring with Russia, regardless of how many nukes she has.

Cold-war is over. Putin wants to go back to the good old days, lol.

gunnut

That is very good to hear. I'll take your word over some media pinhead any day.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

rickusn

"I can not stand rickusn's “China threatening” theory."

First of all its no theory. Its just a fact.

Of course you "can not stand" it because when the Russians finally wise up the jig will be up for China. LOL

China has fooled the world for centuries but not me. LOL

"inscrutable" my butt.

As for Russia scared about NATO.

Well let me say I think NATO should have been disbaned years ago.

But all the former so called Eastern bloc nations and former parts of the thankfully defunct USSR FEAR Russia and its ability and capability to subjucate them again or worse destroy them at anytime for any reason even as a passing whim.

Therfore they have turned to the only credible option available NATO.

There is nothing nefarious or threatening about the situation except the potential of Russia to dictate to those nations the terms of their continued existence.

When I see Russia treating those former "slave states" with equanamity I will of course be obliged to change my perspective.

But make no mistake Im not holding my breath waiting for Russia to do what is right.

On the bright side Im very happy about the continued coooperation and even integration of the Russian Navy into USN and NATO fqrmations.

Warms my heart that at least some Russians see us as allies not enemies.

It behoooves all of the Russain US naysayers and their apologists to closely look at and acknowledge these facts.

Because with the demise of the USSR there can be no return to that failed, outdated paradigm and wont be.

Any Russians or there apologists including the much esteemed Putin are barking up the wrong tree if they think there can be a return to that comfortable and prestigous scenario for Russia.

It simply doesnt exist except in some strangely twisted imaginations.

When Eastern Europe no longer FEARS Russia the pleading of those nations to come under the NATO umbrella will end. But not before.

Ive always had the utmost respect for Soviet(er I mean Russian) sailors. Thank God for them is all I can say!!! They will prove to be the difference maker in relations with other nation sfor Russia. Or so I hope.

The Chinese navy may even someday come to that position. I can only hope.

Because all true sailors are by definition international. As for the most part they like I have alawys been for lack of better word: apolitical.

And why?

Because the sea environment holds all the challenges and dangers a human can stand. And the common sharing of these "challenges and dangers" transcend all other possible differences. Communism at its best.

Until of course the worthless politicians dictate for short periods of time that it be otherwise.

But I dont for second expect the vast majority of posters here to understand this because they have no vested interest in cooperation and rapprochement.

Only in making sure that the US is the enemy of the past, the present and the future at any and all costs.

It will be a shame if this scenario continues unabated because it will only lead to needless bloodshed at some point.

LOL What a world!!!!

MrFirst

The present status of strategic forces allows to feel in safety. As I know the quantity is to be reduced further and the growth of Russian nuclear weapon is not expected. So there is no reason for you to worry about that.
In 1962 didn't attack because both sides were afraid each other and now this situation is kept. The very high probability to get a nuclear strike on own territory rebuffs any wrong intentions. You know, I haven't said that the war with Russia is your intent. But Russia had and has some problems. And who knows what intentions and at whom may appear. To solve the Chechen crisis in favour of Chechens, for example, in Kosovo style. Why not? That was done in respect of Yugoslavia. I believe the US weren't going to war against it but... It happened.
There are the huge numbers of weapons in the World today. And most of all in USA. The US spend for military purposes much more than Russia and create new and new kinds of weapon. And despite the most peaceful intentions this existing weapon and military power must be considered in all defense plans. It's better to overdo.

Firral

I shall disagree with you. Recollect Cuba in 1962. From its full capture it was rescueed with the Russian nuclear weapon.However having lost political weight (military force its component), we could not support and rescue from bombardments of the ally, Serbia, in that war.
However than to you Iraq was dangerous? How many in the world of dictatorships and dictators? However you have chosen Saddam Hussein, having named its most bloody. He was dangerous to your economic interests and your allies.
Hence if you will have economic interests in other country, it should be ready (theoretically certainly ) to your attack.
And how you define the economic interests? One god knows.

__________________

gunnut

Iraq was certainly a threat to the US.

It had stockpiles of chemical/biological agents, as certified by the world's intelligence community, including yours.

Al Queda showed Saddam on 9-11 how to deliver those weapons to a US population center. Saddam financed/supported Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

We put 2 and 2 together.

highsea

Well, Saddam was kind of special.
2+2=5 (for large values of 2)

Stan187

You think I'm wrong? Did you live in the Soviet Union? I did. I ain't wrong about **** I've seen with own eyes.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

omon

what exactly did you see???
i lived there too, you know, and for much longer than you.