Russian military presence in Syria poses challenge to US-led intervention

[Catta]

I'd rather keep the possible pool of nuclear states to the first world, personally.

A shame both India and Pakistan has them though. If either of them didnt have it i wouldnt put it above the other to use it.

[billytwice]

The ability to weather certain mistakes is not necessarily contingent on the capacity for making them; furthermore, while mentioned Empires were powerful at their zenith, they did ultimately crumble (and in the US' case, -is- crumbling) partially as a result of the consequences of certain foreign policy choices. Still, the Roman Empire is not really equivocable since -overall- its policy was relatively realistic, as was the British Empire before they became infected by Wilson's idealism.

In the case of the United States, the effects of its idealistic policy are manifest; pursuing wars of democratic proliferation in both Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to be ultimately fruitless and detrimental to the integrity of the American Empire. It has begun to succumb to the effects of hypertrophy, simply because it no longer possesses the wherewithal to maintain itself.

Rome certainly did not follow any sort of cohesive Raison D'Etat that I could see; what was realistic about them conquering everything the legions could lay their hands on? Their blunders in Germania also contradict your assertion about their 'realism'.

British Empire went through opposing phases ranging from Realpolitik with Castelreigh to the wild fantasies of gladstone, so i will say its hard to classify where the Empire falls. Either way, their is something to be said for this behavior and the results its often produced.

I'll also tack this onto my argument for Russia insofar as that country, although certainly in possession of a bewildering facade that Russians have called Foreign policy, has maintained itself very well over the course of history -- Afghanistan is a stark counterexample that is the exception to the rule, but Russia hasn't been running off into foreign conflicts without ration, and I would attribute its successes to that shrewdness. The United States, on the other hand, plunged headlong into Vietnam, Korea, Iraq... the list goes on.

[Elegiac]

A shame both India and Pakistan has them though. If either of them didnt have it i wouldnt put it above the other to use it.

India is, at the least, a relative stable westernized democratic republic that is able to keep its nuclear arsenal secure. Hell, they even have an enumerated second strike policy in their laws. Pakistan, on the other hand, is not as...safe.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 07:31 PM ----------

Rome certainly did not follow any sort of cohesive Raison D'Etat that I could see; what was realistic about them conquering everything the legions could lay their hands on? Their blunders in Germania also contradict your assertion about their 'realism'.

British Empire went through opposing phases ranging from Realpolitik with Castelreigh to the wild fantasies of gladstone, so i will say its hard to classify where the Empire falls. Either way, their is something to be said for this behavior and the results its often produced.

I'll also tack this onto my argument for Russia insofar as that country, although certainly in possession of a bewildering facade that Russians have called Foreign policy, has maintained itself very well over the course of history -- Afghanistan is a stark counterexample that is the exception to the rule, but Russia hasn't been running off into foreign conflicts without ration, and I would attribute its successes to that shrewdness. The United States, on the other hand, plunged headlong into Vietnam, Korea, Iraq... the list goes on.

What was realistic about it? I would say that it was the Roman state's chief source of income. And remember, while a state may possess an overarching guiding principle, aberrations do occur, especially in states that are autocratic with frequent power shifts. And of course, while I like to state that x country is more realist in its policy than another, the fact remains that states are not always rational actors. I'm simply talking in terms of overall conduct.

Russia did eventually pay the price for its expansionism, as we saw in the First World War; even the collapse of the Soviet Union was a symptom of hypertrophy arising from failure to relate means to ends. Of course, it would be idiotic to pin such events down to a single cause; but they are a contributing factor, and it only takes a few of them piling up to spell disaster for a power.

The problem that the United States faces as regards foolish engagements arising from some moral ideal is this; Americans are too noble in their wartime conduct to be able to fight an asymmetrical war. It would be somewhat less destructive to the American Empire if it was willing to undertake the means necessary to actually win its wars.

[Haven]

The current Russian Military is a joke. Their troops are poorly trained and disciplined, equipment is outdated when they can get it to work and most of their Navy and Airforce are rusting away in storage.

I would agree on the equipment part, but disagree on the training and discipline. Paratroopers and spetsnaz are freaking cyborg zealots, I tell you!

[Kalyyn]

A shame both India and Pakistan has them though. If either of them didnt have it i wouldnt put it above the other to use it.

I still wouldn't put it past Pakistan to use one. More likely, however, is that Pakistan will lose track of one of it's nuclear weapons. They barely maintain control within their own borders, and the CIA has proven that Pakistani guards at nuclear stockpiles can be bribed for as little as a few hundred American dollars.

Also, something I learned at work, it is believed (but not completely confirmed) that Pakistan has already lost one or more of it's nuclear weapons. Even more frightening, several former Soviet satellites are confirmed to have lost multiple nuclear weapons. The exact number is unknown, but a handful of nuclear weapons are currently floating around the world in the hands of non-state entities, completely unregulated by the IAEA.

Which is why Europe really needs to heavily scrutinize any and all traffic coming from Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East (just my opinion)

[N-7]

I still wouldn't put it past Pakistan to use one. More likely, however, is that Pakistan will lose track of one of it's nuclear weapons. They barely maintain control within their own borders, and the CIA has proven that Pakistani guards at nuclear stockpiles can be bribed for as little as a few hundred American dollars.

Also, something I learned at work, it is believed (but not completely confirmed) that Pakistan has already lost one or more of it's nuclear weapons. Even more frightening, several former Soviet satellites are confirmed to have lost multiple nuclear weapons. The exact number is unknown, but a handful of nuclear weapons are currently floating around the world in the hands of non-state entities, completely unregulated by the IAEA.

Which is why Europe really needs to heavily scrutinize any and all traffic coming from Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East (just my opinion)

If those who stole them wanted to use them, they would have done already.

[Catta]

I still wouldn't put it past Pakistan to use one. More likely, however, is that Pakistan will lose track of one of it's nuclear weapons. They barely maintain control within their own borders, and the CIA has proven that Pakistani guards at nuclear stockpiles can be bribed for as little as a few hundred American dollars.

Also, something I learned at work, it is believed (but not completely confirmed) that Pakistan has already lost one or more of it's nuclear weapons. Even more frightening, several former Soviet satellites are confirmed to have lost multiple nuclear weapons. The exact number is unknown, but a handful of nuclear weapons are currently floating around the world in the hands of non-state entities, completely unregulated by the IAEA.

Which is why Europe really needs to heavily scrutinize any and all traffic coming from Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East (just my opinion)

The Soviet ones are suitcase bombs arent they? Is the Pakistani missing weapon not a missile?

[N-7]

"Not exactly angels"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Just look at the guys from the opposition
It's "oppressive dictator VS terrorists", you can't win that war.

It is Afghanistan 2 waiting to happen... how could anyone resist the temptation?

[Kalyyn]

If those who stole them wanted to use them, they would have done already.

I hate to use the "that's like saying" cliche, but that's a bit like saying that if 9/11 was going to happen, it would have happened back in the 90's. Sneaking a nuclear weapon in to a country and detonating it isn't something you do on a whim. Anything goes wrong, and suddenly your bomb has been confiscated by airport security.

No, I imagine any terrorist with a nuclear device is going to save it for the perfect target, at the perfect time. Just killing a million people isn't enough. Terrorist groups tend to be very keen on symbolism, and they orchestrate major attacks in such a way that they make a political statement (religious holidays and elections are their favorites). Basically, they want to save their best toy for a special occasion.

Aside from that, the biggest issue for them is that moving a nuclear weapon in the western world undetected is nearly impossible with today's security. But we must maintain that security, not loosen it. If we all take the attitude of "If they wanted to use it they already would have", then somebody is going to lose a city.

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 03:22 PM ----------

The Soviet ones are suitcase bombs arent they? Is the Pakistani missing weapon not a missile?

To my knowledge, the Russians have something like 2 warheads unaccounted for. The rest are bombs like you would drop out of a plane. The bombs are actually the bigger threat, because the warheads require constant maintenance by trained professionals, or they'll be useless in a few years (so I've been told, I could be wrong though). The bombs, however, can sit around in a warehouse for pretty much forever and set it off at any time.

Now, the suitcase bombs you're referring to are nearly impossible to track, and are likely more common than any of the above. They're typically "dirty bombs", and can be made with nuclear waste with a little bit of know-how. As we've already discussed, you can pretty much walk in to a nuclear facility in Kazakhstan, pay the guards a few hundred dollars, and walk out with a box full of fissile material.

Whatever grievances you may have with the CIA, you should at least appreciate the fact that they work their asses off to track these rogue nuclear devices and keep them out of friendly countries. In fact, I'd have to re-check my facts, but I'm pretty sure we discovered that Russia was missing those two warheads when the CIA bought them from a private arms dealer. Russia either didn't know they were missing, or was keeping it a secret.

[DeltrusDisc]

The only people we should be 'attacking' are Iran. And by 'attacking' I mean giving Israel the green light to deal with their nuclear program.

I'd love to help the citizens of N. Korea...

[Deleted]

I'd love to help the citizens of N. Korea...

As would many, but I think this is a problem they will eventually need to fix for themselves. A civil war would be preferable to an all out conventional war involving many different countries. We could still help the rebels via supplies and "observers".

[Kalyyn]

As would many, but I think this is a problem they will eventually need to fix for themselves. A civil war would be preferable to an all out conventional war involving many different countries. We could still help the rebels via supplies and "observers".

I'd actually like to go over there and shoot at them a bit, personally. I know I said not three posts ago that there are no villains in global politics, but the exception to that rule is North Korea. Good and evil may depend on your perspective, but I cannot possibly imagine a perspective where intentionally starving most of your country and torturing tens of thousands of political prisoners for no readily apparent reason can be considered good. If I could offer any assistance in toppling that regime, even just a little, I think it would be the proudest moment of my life. And I'd absolutely love to see the entire Kim Jong family publicly executed. The fact that Kim Jong Il was allowed to die peacefully is an embarrassment to human history that we can never undo. At some point, we need to draw a line.

To me, it seems that the line should have been drawn long ago. It's so easy to just ignore the problem. It's far away, in a corner of the world where we can laugh at their silly antics and not have to worry about it. It seems almost like fiction. But for 24 million people, North Korea is a real place. It is a place where, for many, life is endless suffering. They know nothing but pain and cruelty from the moment they are born, until the day they are finally blessed with the release of death. After our ancestors ended the holocaust, they swore that we, as a people, would never allow such a thing to happen again. Never again would we sit back and watch. Yet here we are today, letting it happen once more. We contained it, and said that was enough. But for 24 million North Koreans, it continues to this day.

I don't know about you, but I would be willing to fight for those people. I'm told that they're all brainwashed beyond hope. That they would not be grateful for our help. But that doesn't matter. Their children would know. Their grandchildren would know, and they would be thankful that they did not have to be born in to hell on earth.

So there you have it, my big rant for the day. I hope everyone enjoyed it.

[Isotope]

I don't get why people think that China or Russia would stand a chance against the US. You have to remember that both China and Russia would never be able to launch a ground campaign against the US as they don't have the resources to get their troops over here. First they would have to take out our Navy and China isn't equipped to do it and Russia is really lacking in the Naval department.

As for the comment about how people apply RTS to these types of situations and they are foolish. In any RTS and in war if you zerg as fast as you can sure you will get a few victories in small battles but when it comes to a long drawn out war you will lose (see Germany WWII.) War is just a real life, RTS.

[Deleted]

I don't get why people think that China or Russia would stand a chance against the US. You have to remember that both China and Russia would never be able to launch a ground campaign against the US as they don't have the resources to get their troops over here. First they would have to take out our Navy and China isn't equipped to do it and Russia is really lacking in the Naval department.

As for the comment about how people apply RTS to these types of situations and they are foolish. In any RTS and in war if you zerg as fast as you can sure you will get a few victories in small battles but when it comes to a long drawn out war you will lose (see Germany WWII.) War is just a real life, RTS.

The WWII part regarding Germany's loss was because of the stupid aggression towards Russia, thinking it couldn't mobilise quick enough after its revolution.

Russia was able to mobilise so fast, I remember reading up on production figures (specifically tanks) where ONE Russian tank factory produced more than all of the tanks produced in america, the united kingdom and Germany combined.

I'm no fan of either side of any conflict, I would prefer the leaders of the countries do the fighting, rather than the soldiers who are just being used.

As far as talk on technology goes, nobody here can say "Country A's military is more advanced than Country B" with any absolute certainty... Just one example would be that Russian scientists developed stealth technology 20~30 YEARS before the Americans.

[Lockon Stratos]

I love how people think Russia would be a pushover because they're a little behind in technology...Napoleon and Hitler both went into Russia with vastly superior armies, and came out defeated. What makes people think the US and UK (only countries foolish enough to try this) would fare better?

[Priestiality]

Because an Islamic theocracy with nuclear armament is a bad idea.

Israel is only likely to employ their nuclear arsenal at the utmost end of need.

The only resolutions Israel is breaching are the ones passed by the General Assembly, which do not matter.

The only reason they don't get security council resolutions is because the US vetoes them EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Despite the fact they would pass with an overwhelming majority were it not for a SINGLE veto vote. Learn history, please.

Here's some help, straight from the Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../usvetoes.html

[Hedleyazg]

I love how people think Russia would be a pushover because they're a little behind in technology...Napoleon and Hitler both went into Russia with vastly superior armies, and came out defeated. What makes people think the US and UK (only countries foolish enough to try this) would fare better?

Hitler and Napoleon fought ground wars.

[Lockon Stratos]

Hitler and Napoleon fought ground wars.

your point being?

you still need boots in the ground to get anything done.

[Hedleyazg]

your point being?

you still need boots in the ground to get anything done.

Not when you bomb the majority of it to shit. The weaponry used now compared to WW2 is much more advanced. Their whole scorched earth strategy won't work in current times.

[Powerogue]

And a zionic democracy that performs acts of terrorism to the native inhabitants of their country and has nuclear capability is a good idea?

Nobody having nuclear weapons is a good idea, but we're well past that point.

With all the doomsaying here having a point, I'd say just get both countries to cool off and back off before anything escalates. With the US (hopefully) not being dim enough to drag Russia into this. No one wants another Cold War, let alone a world war.