American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

That is a cool map.  We have an office in Poland and I go there 4-5 times a year...not a surprise to see a relatively high percentage.

Germany is 

Darrell

[greenline]

Germany is 

Darrell

90 years of anti Nazi hysteria has consequences.

[AdrienIer]

Anti nazi hysteria is a hell of a phrase

[Charr Babies]

The best security Ukraine can get, guaranteed - Run back to Mama.

The best security Ukraine can achieve is by reuniting with its historical roots and becoming part of the motherland once more. The reunion would ensure protection from future invasions by Russia (a non-issue then) and allow Ukraine and Russia to combine and share in the wealth and prosperity of a unified nation. Enjoy the riches of a united Russia.

Be part of a strong nation in a tripolar world, or be a condom?

The alternative - accepting the deals proposed by the US and EU - Would potentially plunge Ukraine in a forever war. At the very least, would lead to Ukraine divided, impoverished, and vulnerable to foreign interests. Divided up by the West, security for Ukraine would still not be guaranteed. 

[Mjmd]

Heh 3rd post since last word. Or is this a new one as its been almost a day? You're right the parameters would have to be clarified.

And shouldn't THEY GET TO CHOOSE!!?!??!!

Also, this is just historically false. How many wars has NATO been in vs how many wars has Russia been in? NATO has invoked article 5 once. How many wars has Russia been in / what are the odds Russia keeps going? Also, Ukraine lost far more population last time they were under Russian control than the current war. Which again, may be why they CHOSE to be elsewhere. Again, from our perspective both morally and geopolitically it makes sense for us not to let them.

Or they could be part of NATO. Russia has never attacked NATO. Again, odds are Russia would just recruit their population and send them to another war if current / past history is any indicator.

[Charr Babies]

Heh 3rd post since last word. Or is this a new one as its been almost a day? You're right the parameters would have to be clarified.

Gave you the last word on what you and I were debating about. Calling out another's idiocy was not debating with you, unless you are.... Answering your betting challenge is not on the same topic.

The previous post about running back to mama was a new angle no one has mentioned before. 


This is you having to have the last word, so much so you would make a single WORD post 



If it was a continuation of what we were talking about I would have busted your links... so lets continue  

You provided six links, all citing a single source. How do you derive Game Theory from that? What does Game Theory has to do with this except to make your BS look good?. Does Game Theory advocate drawing conclusions based on a single source?  Don’t you find it ODD that all six of your links came from the same source, yet there’s such a massive discrepancy in their reports —ranging from 75% to 90%? 

Does Game Theory operate with such wide margins, allowing claims to fluctuate between 75% to 90% and your claim of  "Impossible/Can't"?

  

[Gustaran]

That is a cool map.  We have an office in Poland and I go there 4-5 times a year...not a surprise to see a relatively high percentage.

Germany is 

If I may shed some light on the numbers for Germany: I highly doubt these percentages are comparable, unless they were all done by the same polling agency with identical questions across all countries. The first issue I would raise is the phrasing of the question. "Fighting for" or "Defending" your country can mean very different things and there certainly is a negative connotation with the former in Germany. Invading Poland or defending against Putin's Russia is not the same.

Secondly, I think it's a bit pointless to poll the complete population of a country, depending on the age structure. If you poll a lot of older citizens or women, you are going to get more negative answers, because your grandparents are probably physically unable to effectively fight in the trenches or use a drone.

Case in point: I can link another poll that specifically asked German men under 50 if they would defend Germany in combat if it was attacked and 61% answered "yes":
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deut...mpfen.html

The number of women is indeed a lot lower (21%). There may be historical reasons for this; for example women have been always exempted from compulsary military service in Germany. In addition, integration of women into the military was rather slow at least compared to the US. Google says that the first women in the German army enlisted in 1975 (as doctors) while the US army already had their first female brigadier general in 1970.

[Mjmd]

I mean if you post disparaging my links and myself that is kind of a last word post..... If you had just responded on the bet that is a different matter. Bet is still up for grabs btw. Since that post you keep showing I will take similar screen shots and put them in a google doc. Lets say two days in between posts.

You didn't really call out idiocy so much as parrot Russian propaganda. I know you won't actually answer any of my questions or points I made about btw.

There were two different base sources there. The 75% came from a different group analyzing a single attack. You can argue if Israel and Raytheon are separate sources or not here, but I'll count them as one. But its a source we should very much take as an UPPER indicator of effectiveness. Both have reasons to state the highest number they can justify. So yes figure 90% for conservative purposes. Again, as we've seen in Israel, Ukraine, and Russia larger attacks (which a nuclear strike 100% would be) are one of the key ways to overwhelm conventional missile defense systems. Again, if we are dealing with ballistic MIRVs (multiple independent targeted reentry vehicles) / decoys things get harder. I don't know how you aren't getting this, but in a nuclear defense scenario you need to get ALL OF THEM. 95% isn't good enough. 99% isn't good enough. Not only that, but you need a system with 100% to cover at least every major city (and you still aren't in a good way if they nuke everywhere that isn't covered). Again, Israel gets a relatively small area to cover vs the US where major cities are larger distances apart than their whole country. So do you spend trillions and trillions to try to get a 100% defensive system that you will never know if its 100% until an opponent tests it OR do you just spend money on your own nuclear arsenal to deter? BTW I'm hand waving in the above you could even develop a new system capable of doing this as the current three systems comprising the iron dome CAN'T. You then get into the whole conundrum of "heh your opponents get to respond" (this is something commonly missed in these discussions). If you develop a system to counter incoming missiles with "X" characteristic there is about 0% chance your opponents won't try making their offensive weapons better and able to evade your defense. 

I will point out btw this whole thing about intercepting discussion came up because you thought Russia CURRENTLY could have a chance of defending if given more time. I didn't even realize your clever deviation until now so hats off to you for making me miss that. However, currently the systems just don't exist, so yaaaa that justification for the war is moot and should be a good indicator that maybe if the reasons you've been lead to believe aren't logical, that you've been lied to.

[Charr Babies]

YADA YADA
Since that post you keep showing I will take similar screen shots and put them in a google doc. Lets say two days in between posts.

I suggest you do that. Try to come up with something as childish and petty as this

There were two different base sources there. The 75% came from a different group analyzing a single attack. You can argue if Israel and Raytheon are separate sources or not here, but I'll count them as one. But its a source we should very much take as an UPPER indicator of effectiveness. Both have reasons to state the highest number they can justify. So yes figure 90% for conservative purposes. Again, as we've seen in Israel, Ukraine, and Russia larger attacks (which a nuclear strike 100% would be) are one of the key ways to overwhelm conventional missile defense systems. Again, if we are dealing with ballistic MIRVs (multiple independent targeted reentry vehicles) / decoys things get harder. I don't know how you aren't getting this, but in a nuclear defense scenario you need to get ALL OF THEM. 95% isn't good enough. 99% isn't good enough. Not only that, but you need a system with 100% to cover at least every major city (and you still aren't in a good way if they nuke everywhere that isn't covered). Again, Israel gets a relatively small area to cover vs the US where major cities are larger distances apart than their whole country. So do you spend trillions and trillions to try to get a 100% defensive system that you will never know if its 100% until an opponent tests it OR do you just spend money on your own nuclear arsenal to deter? BTW I'm hand waving in the above you could even develop a new system capable of doing this as the current three systems comprising the iron dome CAN'T. You then get into the whole conundrum of "heh your opponents get to respond" (this is something commonly missed in these discussions). If you develop a system to counter incoming missiles with "X" characteristic there is about 0% chance your opponents won't try making their offensive weapons better and able to evade your defense. 

Your argument is a red herring to sidetrack the discussion with the effectiveness of nuclear interception. That is you ignoring all the other threats having full blown enemy military installations minutes away from your borders. That's you playing armchair general in full uniform why Russia should not worry about NATO expansion. Why should NATO expand if not to threaten Russia!? 

I will point out btw this whole thing about intercepting discussion came up because you thought Russia CURRENTLY could have a chance of defending if given more time.

Here you are putting words in my mouth again. That's your red herring to sidetrack the discussion with the effectiveness of nuclear interception. That is you ignoring all the other threats having full blown enemy military installations minutes away from your borders.

I didn't even realize your clever deviation until now so hats off to you for making me miss that. However, currently the systems just don't exist, so yaaaa that justification for the war is moot and should be a good indicator that maybe if the reasons you've been lead to believe aren't logical, that you've been lied to.

 you are still......
ignoring all the other threats having full blown enemy military installations minutes away from your borders.  


Still the same question 
How do you derive Game Theory from that. Does Game Theory operate with such wide margins, allowing claims to fluctuate between 75% to 90% and your claim of  "Impossible/Can't"?
How do you derive Game Theory from that. Is that the same funky formula how you prove Trump is worse than bloody jo on genocide? (is that also Game Theory?)

[Mjmd]

Is that an official bet? I want you to say "I'm putting my money where my mouth is". As a reminder loser can't post on this or other politics thread until they pay. And I wrote "word" it to be funny.

I've answered the first part of this MULTIPLE TIMES. Russia has proven they don't care about conventional military bases on their border. So again things you haven't responded to 1) no nuclear armed state has ever been seriously invaded. 2) Russia has pulled troops and equipment AWAY from NATO borders. Including their new long and CLOSE border with NATO member Finland. There is an obvious 3rd as well here 3) NATO hasn't decimated army whiles its IN Ukraine. If NATO wanted to destroy Russias conventional army they have had a great opportunity.

HMMM What is the OBVIOUS reason NATO has expanded. Is it perhaps all the eastern bloc countries fearing they would GET INVADED. How much good did Russia's promise to Ukraine do for Ukraine? Polish political writers were theorizing about joining NATO in the 70s if they ever got free from Russia as the only long term way for them to be safe. This is one of those questions where I question if you are truly serious. I suspect you are seriouisand just actually believe Putin as you've indicted before.

Speaking of questioning if you are serious, don't say I'm twisting words when I can quote you.

I will point out btw this whole thing about intercepting discussion came up because you thought Russia CURRENTLY could have a chance of defending if given more time.

Here you are putting words in my mouth again. That's your red herring to sidetrack the discussion with the effectiveness of nuclear interception. That is you ignoring all the other threats having full blown enemy military installations minutes away from your borders.

I didn't even realize your clever deviation until now so hats off to you for making me miss that. However, currently the systems just don't exist, so yaaaa that justification for the war is moot and should be a good indicator that maybe if the reasons you've been lead to believe aren't logical, that you've been lied to.

And here are your words.

Charr Babies

I know things are little hard for an armchair general to understand real military matters, but a little critical thinking goes a long way.

What technology makes it irrelevant where nukes are installed? Please tell. 
By your "logic", are they all wasting money and effort to developed various missile defenses systems against missiles from different range and speed? 
By your "logic", it makes no difference if you have 5 minutes or hours of warning.    
By your "logic", since there are nuke near you, it makes no difference if there are more, within 5 minutes range, to overwhelm the defense system. 

And again, I've answered both the conventional military threat and will point out its YOU who bring up the nuclear threat EVERY TIME this conversation happens. Both are moot for multiple reasons I've gone over multiple times. You've never addressed any of my points. Also, again I agree its a red herring that YOU bring up.

Let me know what you are confused with on a non 100% system isn't viable vs nukes. I had a whole paragraph on this. I assumed you knew "Nukes = big big boom and radiation" so I did leave that part out. And again, not relevant for current justification for war, which again I agree is a red herring YOU bring up.

We are mainly going ad nauseum (AGAIN) because you just keep saying the same things I've already disproven (MULTIPLE TIMES) without addressing the actual points I'm bringing up.

Mjmd
And heh I give you last word most of the time. So say whatever thing that won't answer the question you want I guess, that will also try to get me to respond again, and will probably have an ad hominem in it.

Know if you respond with ANYTHING other than "I'm putting my money where my mouth is" it will be considered last word for betting purposes.