Turn on thread page Beta

Listen to us now: Putin unveils new Russian nuclear arsenal watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Say what you want about the man but he's good with a microphone.
    More seriously though whilst I don't think this is good news for global efforts to eradicate nuclear weapons I do think this shouldn't come as a shock.
    Since the collapse of the ussr America has been a lose cannon doing what it wants when it wants with no thought or care for other nations interests - it set the stage for a mighty push back which we are now seeing globally from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Asia. In ones view thanks to Americas arrogance and, as Mr Putin put it, 'Americans unconstrained use of hyper force' we are seeing a global push back against western interests and we have only our selves (and America) to blame.
    As many political analysts have noted the era of pax America is on the wane with their ability to act unilaterally to help the world gone. Whilst they and us could have helped contain the menace in the east that is Beijing we have instead alienated (perhaps permanently) one of the most important and powerful countries in the world and made Beijing the sole beneficiary in this zero sum global contest.




    https://www.rt.com/news/420206-russi...weapons-putin/
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    . Whilst they and us could have helped contain the menace in the east that is Beijing we have instead alienated (perhaps permanently) one of the most important and powerful countries in the world and made Beijing the sole beneficiary in this zero sum global contest.

    https://www.rt.com/news/420206-russi...weapons-putin/
    It was one sided, Russia did nothing and we picked on them, we alienated them with no provocation; oh really, is that not a somewhat skewed view?

    Whilst there is certainly truth in the arguments against Western world interference there is also truth that Russia has done its own share of dodgy overseas excursions.

    And really, the menace in the East, Beijing; of course China stretches its sphere of influence and flexes its muscles, all great powers do, but the idea of Russia and the West containing this, what would you suggest that would be proportionate and why would they be justified?

    You posit that the USA and the West ought not to have interfered around the globe so frankly suggesting interference in China's playground seems at odds with the original isolationist stance proposed.

    The fact is larger powers are damned if they do act and damned if they don't, being large ,like being an oldest sibling, means your "parents" (the public at large around the world) expect you to take charge of the others but will invariably take issue with how you did it.

    Frankly for anyone living in Western Europe an isolationist stance from the USA would be very worrying- it would certainly at the least impact the standard of living of every individual as resources were reallocated into building a Western European defence strategy ex the USA ,at the worst it would be a green light for Moscow; be careful what you wish for.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The Americans are also doing this sort of thing, consequently we will be too, the French will also be doing this, and the Chinese. Obviously we know the North Koreans are, it's quite possible the Indians and Pakistanis are but probably not because their nukes are for each other rather than the world at large and they aren't the richest, and maybe the israelis are too, their nukes are for Iran but they have a lot of money for weapons development.

    Nukes are no longer delivered by B-29. The Minuteman might have had entered service in 1962 but still got two upgrades and still became somewhat obsolete with Polaris, later replaced by trident. B-29 isn't used by the US anymore, it was replaced by the B-52, B-1, B-2 and possibly others. The French originally used Mirage IVs but in the 80s/90s replaced it with a variant of of the Mirage 2000 for their nuclear bomber. Britain originally used the V bombers (Victor, Valiant, and Vulcan) which in a strategic role we're replaced by Polaris (again, later trident) with tactical nuclear capabilities being taken on by the Jaguar and Tornado aircraft.

    I don't know enough about Russian or Chinese delivery systems, let alone historic delivery systems, to comment there, but the point is that like all weapon systems nuclear delivery is not static, hell, I wouldn't be surprised if development of new weapons is still ongoing with a low budget and obviously having to operate with simulated tests rather than actual tests.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    It was one sided, Russia did nothing and we picked on them, we alienated them with no provocation; oh really, is that not a somewhat skewed view?
    No one ever said that?
    Whilst there is certainly truth in the arguments against Western world interference there is also truth that Russia has done its own share of dodgy overseas excursions.
    Indeed it has,2 of them... compared to western invasions across the africa, Yugoslavia, the middle east. On a question of scale the US led world is orders of magnitude worse than Russia.
    And really, the menace in the East, Beijing; of course China stretches its sphere of influence and flexes its muscles, all great powers do, but the idea of Russia and the West containing this, what would you suggest that would be proportionate and why would they be justified?
    In reigning in Chinas global ambitions? Surely you can answer that yourself? To retain the European world order mainly and not see it torn down by a resurgent China.
    The idea that Chinas rise will be peaceful and there wont be an clash be it big or small with the west, namely America or Japan is fallacious in my view.
    As for Russia in that regard I more meant them selling high tech weaponry to Beijing which they otherwise would not have gotten.
    You posit that the USA and the West ought not to have interfered around the globe so frankly suggesting interference in China's playground seems at odds with the original isolationist stance proposed.
    Reigning in a country and bombing it into the stone age are two very different things.
    The fact is larger powers are damned if they do act and damned if they don't, being large ,like being an oldest sibling, means your "parents" (the public at large around the world) expect you to take charge of the others but will invariably take issue with how you did it.
    I'm sorry i didnt get your point on this one?
    Frankly for anyone living in Western Europe an isolationist stance from the USA would be very worrying- it would certainly at the least impact the standard of living of every individual as resources were reallocated into building a Western European defence strategy ex the USA ,at the worst it would be a green light for Moscow; be careful what you wish for.
    I think you've misinterpreted my post.
    I have no been aiming for an isolationist America, more I was lamenting [and damning] their foolish decision to push Russia into China's embrace and turn it back into an enemy - a move which i consider far more dangerous than an isolationist America.
    Equally what is wrong with critising them for their *illegal* rapacious invasions of countries like Iraq which in turn engulfed the entire middle east in flames? Few countries have done such damn fool hardy mistakes before.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    No one ever said that?

    Somewhat implied re context, the USA attitude to Russia partially stems from Russian (and before that Soviet) activities.

    Indeed it has,2 of them... compared to western invasions across the africa, Yugoslavia, the middle east. On a question of scale the US led world is orders of magnitude worse than Russia.

    Ukraine , Georgia and of course Afghanistan- one also cannot ignore the spin off effect re Russian action in Chechnya and they are certainly currently busy in Syria. The eventual results re the former Yugoslavia possibly justify the intervention there, the catch is it is only post event one can determine whether such actions are for good or evil.

    In reigning in Chinas global ambitions? Surely you can answer that yourself? To retain the European world order mainly and not see it torn down by a resurgent China.
    The idea that Chinas rise will be peaceful and there wont be an clash be it big or small with the west, namely America or Japan is fallacious in my view.
    As for Russia in that regard I more meant them selling high tech weaponry to Beijing which they otherwise would not have gotten.

    One cannot really with any moral authority castigate the USA for interfering in the Middle East whilst suggesting that the USA should interfere to hold back China.

    Reigning in a country and bombing it into the stone age are two very different things.

    Syria, Eastern Ghouta?

    I'm sorry i didnt get your point on this one?

    World powers get blamed for intervening and blamed if they do not, it is their lot in life, the catch is interventions are a lottery.

    I think you've misinterpreted my post.
    I have no been aiming for an isolationist America, more I was lamenting [and damning] their foolish decision to push Russia into China's embrace and turn it back into an enemy - a move which i consider far more dangerous than an isolationist America.
    Equally what is wrong with critising them for their *illegal* rapacious invasions of countries like Iraq which in turn engulfed the entire middle east in flames? Few countries have done such damn fool hardy mistakes before.

    Not so, history is littered with ineptitude.


    ..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    ..
    Somewhat implied re context, the USA attitude to Russia partially stems from Russian (and before that Soviet) activities.
    That was not my intent however it is a simple fact that the West seriously botched reintegrating Russia into the international system - not to mention it was western advisers who destroyed their economy under Yeltsin.
    Some would call it a little crass to judge the son by the sins of the father, not to mention it does nothing to stop the cycle.
    Ukraine , Georgia and of course Afghanistan- one also cannot ignore the spin off effect re Russian action in Chechnya and they are certainly currently busy in Syria. The eventual results re the former Yugoslavia possibly justify the intervention there, the catch is it is only post event one can determine whether such actions are for good or evil.

    Georgia fired the first shots in that war, arguably the Russians did a good thing when they stopped the Georgians pummeling South Ossetia.
    Ukraine proper is their bad i'll grant you, Crimea is somewhat more debatable and after the coup d'etat there was every possibility they would loose a vital port - in my eyes they did little more than take back the gift that USSR had given away.
    I feel it is important to draw a distinct line between the USSR and Russia here - modern Russia has not been involved there, bar helping the Americans to a degree.
    What effects would you be reffering to in chechnya?
    Yugoslavia was a serious **** up in long term strategic terms.
    As for Syria - you do know they were legally invited in by the recognized government right?
    One cannot really with any moral authority castigate the USA for interfering in the Middle East whilst suggesting that the USA should interfere to hold back China.

    Theres a slight difference between blowing up a region for oil and arms sales [not to mention appeasing the Saudis and Israelis] and clipping the wings of a country that will likely surpass the USA and start to remake the world in its image.
    Syria, Eastern Ghouta?

    What about it? Its no different from what was done in Mosul - why exactly when the West does something is laudable but when the Russians/syrians do something it is abhorrent, despite them being the same action?
    The fact of the matter is the Russians are there legally, America is not.
    ]
    World powers get blamed for intervening and blamed if they do not, it is their lot in life, the catch is interventions are a lottery.

    In ones view they should probably keep their noses out then. The list of dead due to direct American action numbers probably over 10mn. We have Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, most of South/Central America etc. etc. America might have done good for the world [by world i mean west] but it has done a lot more bad things and should be held to account.
    Not so, history is littered with ineptitude.

    Indeed it is but tell me what regular **** ups for such a fleeting reason as oil have killed so many people and destroyed entire regions [not including the world wars however]
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    That was not my intent however it is a simple fact that the West seriously botched reintegrating Russia into the international system - not to mention it was western advisers who destroyed their economy under Yeltsin.
    Some would call it a little crass to judge the son by the sins of the father, not to mention it does nothing to stop the cycle.
    [/b]
    Georgia fired the first shots in that war, arguably the Russians did a good thing when they stopped the Georgians pummeling South Ossetia.
    Ukraine proper is their bad i'll grant you, Crimea is somewhat more debatable and after the coup d'etat there was every possibility they would loose a vital port - in my eyes they did little more than take back the gift that USSR had given away.
    I feel it is important to draw a distinct line between the USSR and Russia here - modern Russia has not been involved there, bar helping the Americans to a degree.
    What effects would you be reffering to in chechnya?
    Yugoslavia was a serious **** up in long term strategic terms.
    As for Syria - you do know they were legally invited in by the recognized government right?
    [/b]
    Theres a slight difference between blowing up a region for oil and arms sales [not to mention appeasing the Saudis and Israelis] and clipping the wings of a country that will likely surpass the USA and start to remake the world in its image.
    [/b]
    What about it? Its no different from what was done in Mosul - why exactly when the West does something is laudable but when the Russians/syrians do something it is abhorrent, despite them being the same action?
    The fact of the matter is the Russians are there legally, America is not.
    ][/b]
    In ones view they should probably keep their noses out then. The list of dead due to direct American action numbers probably over 10mn. We have Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, most of South/Central America etc. etc. America might have done good for the world [by world i mean west] but it has done a lot more bad things and should be held to account.
    [/b]
    Indeed it is but tell me what regular **** ups for such a fleeting reason as oil have killed so many people and destroyed entire regions [not including the world wars however]
    What is it always about the oil, are the USA stealing it and taking it home with them? If they wanted total control of all the oil they would have left boots on the ground, the fact they did not (which was half the problem re Iraq post conflict) suggests that it was not the prime mover, despite the hype.

    Yes, I accept the US has large boots and is very, very, clumsy, yes they have the attention span of a gnat, yes they do not plan much beyond the day after tomorrow, however you cannot cherry pick the interventions/global activities.

    The Russians (and given recent behaviour I see little problem gathering Russia under the Czars, Russia under the Soviet and Putin's Russia as similar entities) are not the world's good guys or bad guys and the USA are not the world's bad guys or good guys, they are both just larger powers (Russia being currently a little clipped) who as larger powers have always done flex their muscles and get things right and wrong- if the US curtailed its spheres of influence and say withdrew from NATO I would not be feeling that comfortable, the fact is the West gets the use of their umbrella if it rains and has to put up with the fact that they keep prodding people with the tip when it is not open.

    And if we are judging as a beauty parade re least foreign excursions over recent years, well actually China has been the least offensive (internationally as against internally) of the lot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    What is it always about the oil, are the USA stealing it and taking it home with them? If they wanted total control of all the oil they would have left boots on the ground, the fact they did not (which was half the problem re Iraq post conflict) suggests that it was not the prime mover, despite the hype.
    Shall we start with almost all of the subsequent oil contrats went to American firms like Haliburton and the man put in charge of 'safe guarding' the IRaqi oil was also American? I feel we should next move on to the slight issue with that they did leave boots on the ground, for many years in fact.
    As for the given reasons each one has been proved to be categorically false; there were no WMDs and Saddam was not aiding and abetting AQ

    Yes, I accept the US has large boots and is very, very, clumsy, yes they have the attention span of a gnat, yes they do not plan much beyond the day after tomorrow, however you cannot cherry pick the interventions/global activities.
    Might I ask why not? The list of heinous acts perpetrated by them from toppling democracies to boarderline genocide is rather long.

    The Russians (and given recent behaviour I see little problem gathering Russia under the Czars, Russia under the Soviet and Putin's Russia as similar entities) are not the world's good guys or bad guys and the USA are not the world's bad guys or good guys, they are both just larger powers (Russia being currently a little clipped) who as larger powers have always done flex their muscles and get things right and wrong- if the US curtailed its spheres of influence and say withdrew from NATO I would not be feeling that comfortable, the fact is the West gets the use of their umbrella if it rains and has to put up with the fact that they keep prodding people with the tip when it is not open.
    To be perfectly frank I do rather agree with this statement.
    And if we are judging as a beauty parade re least foreign excursions over recent years, well actually China has been the least offensive (internationally as against internally) of the lot.
    Indeed it has but I would say thats more because its 'big bang' in economic terms has been rather recent and its upgrading of its military capabilities has been very recent - the fact is that it now has the ability to project power into its near abroad and will very soon be happily able to project power wherever it so pleases. To assume that China will be a happy and non-interventionist global player would seem dreadfully unlikely to me.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Shall we start with almost all of the subsequent oil contrats went to American firms like Haliburton and the man put in charge of 'safe guarding' the IRaqi oil was also American? I feel we should next move on to the slight issue with that they did leave boots on the ground, for many years in fact.
    As for the given reasons each one has been proved to be categorically false; there were no WMDs and Saddam was not aiding and abetting AQ

    The contracts may have gone to US firms but to some extent that is expected if they are at the time the occupying power, may not be right but even though this may happen being comfortable doing the deal, keeping it local, is often seen as easier. The boots on the ground were actually too few and not effectively used. I fully accept the point re WMD et al, but once you have burned down someone's fence (which you ought not to have done) you ought to stick around with all the needed materials long enough until it is properly rebuilt


    Might I ask why not? The list of heinous acts perpetrated by them from toppling democracies to boarderline genocide is rather long.

    Depends, the first Gulf war assisted Kuwait post invasion by Iraq, Somalia intervention to act as peacekeepers, Grenada invasion to give support to democracy and given what was happening in Yugoslavia intervention was possibly justified. It is a very tough call re which (before the event) have a justification and which do not- given USA had really no political interest re say Yugoslavia their intervention there can likely be stripped of ulterior motive beyond trying to end the conflict and murder that was going on.


    To be perfectly frank I do rather agree with this statement.

    Indeed it has but I would say thats more because its 'big bang' in economic terms has been rather recent and its upgrading of its military capabilities has been very recent - the fact is that it now has the ability to project power into its near abroad and will very soon be happily able to project power wherever it so pleases. To assume that China will be a happy and non-interventionist global player would seem dreadfully unlikely to me.

    Are you suggesting nobody should be permitted to exert power/influence over areas/spheres, or only The West ex USA should, or only Russia should and the US should not as they are not very good at it? I am sure China does intervene/ will intervene. But from a moral standpoint if that position is taken there should never be a humanitarian intervention which has a possibility of conflict, which is virtually all of them except natural disasters, and that does not sit well with my conscience; omission is also a sin as can be action.

    The real answer is an effective UN with its own forces but that is just not happening and likely will not for a very long time, in an age of reassertion of sovereignty, (Brexit et al) nations are not going to subsume manpower and money so the UN can become a peacekeeper, so larger nations will continue to blunder into areas they ought to avoid, execute things badly, but life is not perfect and neither are politicians; discerning motive can be the trickiest thing .

    See above responses
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    See above responses
    What above responses?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    What above responses?
    Just to alert that they were in the "see more" click .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Just to alert that they were in the "see more" click .
    If its the one i think it is i've already replied to that havent I ?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    If its the one i think it is i've already replied to that havent I ?
    Well never mind then.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2018
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.