American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Did we invade Cuba? Again, I would expect a political response. There also is a VAST increase of technology from that time period in the range and capabilities.

Should the US blow up every nuclear armed submarine in the Atlantic and Pacific? International waters start a lot closer than Cuba. I'm sure there are some Chinese and Russian nuclear armed subs somewhere closish. Nowadays doesn't matter. Its more of a political statement and therefore I would expect the response to be political. I'm sure its not coincidence we don't have nukes in eastern bloc countries. The US has worked with Russia in the past on reducing nukes in general and its nukes in Europe.

ITS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR. Its propaganda. Doesn't make sense from a technical prospective. Check. Clear historical example of not occurring in other similar situations. Check. Hits people in the feels. Check.

[darrelljs]

Did we invade Cuba?

I mean, depending on what version of the Bay of Pigs you subscribe to the answer is yes.

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

Did we invade Cuba? Again, I would expect a political response. There also is a VAST increase of technology from that time period in the range and capabilities.

Should the US blow up every nuclear armed submarine in the Atlantic and Pacific? International waters start a lot closer than Cuba. I'm sure there are some Chinese and Russian nuclear armed subs somewhere closish. Nowadays doesn't matter. Its more of a political statement and therefore I would expect the response to be political. I'm sure its not coincidence we don't have nukes in eastern bloc countries. The US has worked with Russia in the past on reducing nukes in general and its nukes in Europe.

ITS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR. Its propaganda. Doesn't make sense from a technical prospective. Check. Clear historical example of not occurring in other similar situations. Check. Hits people in the feels. Check.

The Soviet nukes was in response to us installing nuke in Italy and Turkey. 
Yes we have invaded Cuba in a violent campaign of TERRORISM and sabotage. We are great at terrorism and sabotage around the globe, although more subtle nowadays.
I guess what is good for the gander is not good for the goose. Double Standards! Nukes in Turkey and Italy remains.
If an agreement had not been reached for the Soviet to dismantle, It would have been a full blown war.
The avoidance of full blown (nuclear) war was not because we are benevolent, it's because Soviet backed down.
US sanctions on Cuba has created great human suffering for generation, 60 years and counting.

You don't blow up other nations ships in international waters. You can follow and harass. If you find a sub, you can have a media shaming celebration over the event. Why Russia and China had a media frenzy when a fighter jet crashed on the Carl Vinson carrier, and a us sub crashed in the SCS a couple of years ago 
Or, you can pretend you don't see the sub and keep tab on it so the enemy don't know that you know. 

Your expectations matter less than zero. Being an armchair general doesn't give you any insights in real war "games". You don't know the reality of war. You be home watching the Superbowl guzzling beer and stuffing munchies having laughs with friend and family; even while our soldiers are destroying homes and families abroad. Even now with people dying left and right on one side, and genocide happening on the other side. As previously mentioned in another post, it is all money well spent, no one care about humanity. You have absolutely no idea what it is like on the frontline. Easy for you to say lets talk it over with a beer. And, as for me, I have this first world problem in my hands - I was planning to visit Iran but now I have to change my plans... War is so inconvenient 

[Mjmd]

Ah lovely we are back to Ad Hominem. I don't drink beer but maybe one once a month for the record.

My question on subs was rhetorical. It was to show that trying to destroy all nuke threats close to home is not actually a thing you can do. I was trying to show it doesn't actually matter where the land nukes are located because the water ones are much closer. Edit: a US nuclear armed sub has capacity for double the nuclear warheads in Europe. ONE SUB. And the US has 18 of them.

Lets for once try to stick on subject. Tell me how I'm wrong. Was there evidence the US was plotting to put nukes in Ukraine? You know instead of attacking someone actually countering their argument. Would a war be justified even then? Lets tackle the first question, but 2nd is still relevant because in my mind war is bad (especially when nukes are involved). I don't want Poland invading Belarus either.

[greenline]

Your expectations matter less than zero. Being an armchair general doesn't give you any insights in real war "games". You don't know the reality of war. You be home watching the Superbowl guzzling beer and stuffing munchies having laughs with friend and family; even while our soldiers are destroying homes and families abroad. Even now with people dying left and right on one side, and genocide happening on the other side. As previously mentioned in another post, it is all money well spent, no one care about humanity. You have absolutely no idea what it is like on the frontline. Easy for you to say lets talk it over with a beer. And, as for me, I have this first world problem in my hands - I was planning to visit Iran but now I have to change my plans... War is so inconvenient 

Surely you're aware that the intelligentsia crowd who cares about 'genocide' are the same people working overtime to spread democracy abroad and those pushing hardest for the war in Ukraine? It's not the beer guzzling superbowl watchers...

[Mjmd]

I'm sorry Greenline, who started the war in Ukraine? That is what this whole argument has been about.

[greenline]

Obviously Russia started it. The people in the West pushing hardest for aid to Ukraine or for direct intervention (gnashing their teeth loudly about how nuclear reprisal makes this infeasible) are not beer guzzling superbowl watchers, they are career bureaucrats and politicians. Or wannabes jostling to get such positions.

[Charr Babies]

Ah lovely we are back to Ad Hominem. I don't drink beer but maybe one once a month for the record.

My question on subs was rhetorical. It was to show that trying to destroy all nuke threats close to home is not actually a thing you can do. I was trying to show it doesn't actually matter where the land nukes are located because the water ones are much closer.

Your strawman does not work here. LoL, I was answering your questions you listed to show your ignorance of the facts and you say I strayed off topic. Then you keep moving your goal post once you are exposed.

We were talking land base installation. You always fails to answer the real question. Your strawman is plain to see, it did not escape me. Other than the constant permanent nuclear threats from a land base installation, which is so so different than a sub. Land base military installations imposes great threats in many forms before a full nuke war. 

Yes, stay on the subject. I am not buying your easy peasy no fuss pretense for Russia and China to surround us with military bases (with nukes). If it was genuine it only show your ignorance in the matter.

Lets for once try to stick on subject. Tell me how I'm wrong. Was there evidence the US was plotting to put nukes in Ukraine? You know instead of attacking someone actually countering their argument. Would a war be justified even then? Lets tackle the first question, but in my mind war is bad. I don't want Poland invading Belarus either.

You are wrong in so many things, even on basic things such as Cuba invasion. While you say stay on topic, you are moving the goal post once again. Like I've said "Slippery"

Was there evidence the US was plotting to put nukes in Ukraine? We will only know once docs get declassified, if ever. As you are so fond of saying, lets look at history. How many nukes do we have over there already. History tells us the odds are we would put more there when ever we can gat away from it.

but in my mind war is bad

 
OMG, how about war is bad?

Being an armchair general doesn't give you any insights in real war "games". You don't know the reality of war. You be home watching the Superbowl guzzling beer and stuffing munchies having laughs with friend and family; even while our soldiers are destroying homes and families abroad. Even now with people dying left and right on one side, and genocide happening on the other side. As previously mentioned in another post, it is all money well spent, no one care about humanity. You have absolutely no idea what it is like on the frontline. Easy for you to say lets talk it over with a beer.

War is not money well spent!

WAR IS NOT ONLY BAD IN YOUR MIND.  WAR IS BADDDDD!

I don't want Poland invading Belarus either.

Stay on the subject, no more strawman and moving the goal post. No fuss over Chinese And Russian Military Bases Encircling US. 
How many here believe that is an honest answer!?

[Charr Babies]

[Mjmd]

I am on subject. I'm showing that land bases are actually FARTHER away than a sub. Not only that but the enemy knows where they are. Sure its part of the triad, but its hardly the most dangerous. Lets say 20 nukes were put in Ukraine. Deos that matter when a sub could have 288 off the coast? No. I'm trying to show its a really stupid justification for war. I'm trying to prove from a technical point of view it doesn't matter. If I said from a technical point of view it didn't matter and then didn't prove it I would be committing a logical fallacy.

Do we have any nukes in the former eastern bloc. NO. NO. NO. So could we have plans? Again, hard to prove non existence. But hopefully we can agree that war shouldn't be declared because something has a 1% of happening? And lets be clear the chance of use is negligible.

Are you saying war is good? Yes I've never been on the front line, but do you disagree with me that war is bad? Other than insulting me I'm not sure what your argument is. This is why insulting people isn't a good form of argument.

Russia has ANNOUNCED that they will move nukes to Belarus. There is NO evidence let alone announcement of nukes going to Ukraine. I was merely pointing out that in a similar situation where its a western country getting nukes closer to it I don't think they should invade either. Obviously I disagree Russia should invade a country on a stupid unlikely hypothetical. I've stated that multiple times. I was merely trying to draw a comparison since you don't seem to want to actually prove that it is justified.

Please try to without insulting me, argue that a hypothetical 20 nukes (I would suspect lower but just the same as many other non Italy countries Europe countries) justifies Russia invading? I've made my arguments. 1) it doesn't technically change anything. 2) its extremely unlikely it would have happened.