Nuclear War?

[Zam-Zam]

One Democrat is sounding the alarm:

President Barack Obama is risking a nuclear war against Russian President Vladimir Putin the minute he decided to deploy American fighter jets on the border between Turkey and Syria, according to Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
The deployment of a specialized expeditionary targeting force announced on Tuesday and the president’s vocal objection of President Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Putin’s strong ally, could lead America into a nuclear standoff with Russia, Gabbard said.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of – whether it’s intentional or even an accident event – where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for devastating nuclear war,” Gabbard told Defense secretary Ashton Carter as quoted by the National Review.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/obama-vs-putin-nuclear-war-looms-2346611.html


Well, Obama did want a legacy......

 

[Max R.]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

 

[Boca]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

Merkin Muffley?

 

[Max R.]

Merkin Muffley?

It's a satire.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

One Democrat is sounding the alarm:

President Barack Obama is risking a nuclear war against Russian President Vladimir Putin the minute he decided to deploy American fighter jets on the border between Turkey and Syria, according to Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
The deployment of a specialized expeditionary targeting force announced on Tuesday and the president’s vocal objection of President Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Putin’s strong ally, could lead America into a nuclear standoff with Russia, Gabbard said.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of – whether it’s intentional or even an accident event – where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for devastating nuclear war,” Gabbard told Defense secretary Ashton Carter as quoted by the National Review.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/obama-vs-putin-nuclear-war-looms-2346611.html


Well, Obama did want a legacy......

That's some serious carping.

But what do you think we should do instead?

 

[Boca]

It's a satire.

Ohh, I thought it was some dude from Australia.

 

[Queen Titania]

One Democrat is sounding the alarm:

President Barack Obama is risking a nuclear war against Russian President Vladimir Putin the minute he decided to deploy American fighter jets on the border between Turkey and Syria, according to Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
The deployment of a specialized expeditionary targeting force announced on Tuesday and the president’s vocal objection of President Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Putin’s strong ally, could lead America into a nuclear standoff with Russia, Gabbard said.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of – whether it’s intentional or even an accident event – where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for devastating nuclear war,” Gabbard told Defense secretary Ashton Carter as quoted by the National Review.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/obama-vs-putin-nuclear-war-looms-2346611.html


Well, Obama did want a legacy......

Turkey and the US have not bombed Syria since The Bear bought in its Big Bears Gun.

 

[Arkady]

One Democrat is sounding the alarm:

President Barack Obama is risking a nuclear war against Russian President Vladimir Putin the minute he decided to deploy American fighter jets on the border between Turkey and Syria, according to Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
The deployment of a specialized expeditionary targeting force announced on Tuesday and the president’s vocal objection of President Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Putin’s strong ally, could lead America into a nuclear standoff with Russia, Gabbard said.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of – whether it’s intentional or even an accident event – where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for devastating nuclear war,” Gabbard told Defense secretary Ashton Carter as quoted by the National Review.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/obama-vs-putin-nuclear-war-looms-2346611.html


Well, Obama did want a legacy......

What would you recommend? Should we ignore our NATO commitments and refuse to deploy fighters to Turkey? I'm one of the least hawkish people in this forum, and I've criticized Obama for a number of his military actions, but I refuse to criticize him for assisting an ally with its air defenses. We should, of course, take reasonable precautions to err on the side of non-aggression, especially anywhere close enough to the border that incursions could conceivably be innocent. But if Putin wants to test the resolve of NATO, he has to get a clear message that violating the airspace of a NATO nation will get a forceful response.

 

[Zam-Zam]

What would you recommend? Should we ignore our NATO commitments and refuse to deploy fighters to Turkey? I'm one of the least hawkish people in this forum, and I've criticized Obama for a number of his military actions, but I refuse to criticize him for assisting an ally with its air defenses. We should, of course, take reasonable precautions to err on the side of non-aggression, especially anywhere close enough to the border that incursions could conceivably be innocent. But if Putin wants to test the resolve of NATO, he has to get a clear message that violating the airspace of a NATO nation will get a forceful response.

I haven't argued for, or against any policy here. I'm pointing out that at least one elected Democrat believes it to be an inherently dangerous situation. I found that to be newsworthy and thought-provoking.

Now, you either agree with her, or you don't. Whatever side you come down on is fine with me.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I haven't argued for, or against any policy here. I'm pointing out that at least one elected Democrat believes it to be an inherently dangerous situation. I found that to be newsworthy and thought-provoking.

Now, you either agree with her, or you don't. Whatever side you come down on is fine with me.

Of course it's dangerous.

But, other than carping, do you have anything to offer? What should we do instead of what we're doing?

 

[Arkady]

I haven't argued for, or against any policy here. I'm pointing out that at least one elected Democrat believes it to be an inherently dangerous situation.

Given the number of elected Democrats, I'd expect at least one to hold just about any remotely sane position you can think of. And, inevitably, when one of those positions can be taken as a criticism of Obama, right-wingers will trumpet it to social media to try to breed internal dissent within the party. Such is life.

Now, you either agree with her, or you don't. Whatever side you come down on is fine with me.

I agree with the idea that this is a dangerous situation. But Putin is forcing a choice on NATO of the lesser of two evils. Either NATO polices the sovereign airspace of its member nations, which means potential accidents and escalating tensions, or it doesn't, which emboldens Putin to push farther and farther. The lesser of the two evils is to hold the line against him. Hopefully he quickly learns where his limits lie and sticks to them: bomb the crap out of Syria, if he must, but stay the hell out of our allies' airspace.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Given the number of elected Democrats, I'd expect at least one to hold just about any remotely sane position you can think of. And, inevitably, when one of those positions can be taken as a criticism of Obama, right-wingers will trumpet it to social media to try to breed internal dissent within the party. Such is life.



I agree with the idea that this is a dangerous situation. But Putin is forcing a choice on NATO of the lesser of two evils. Either NATO polices the sovereign airspace of its member nations, which means potential accidents and escalating tensions, or it doesn't, which emboldens Putin to push farther and farther. The lesser of the two evils is to hold the line against him. Hopefully he quickly learns where his limits lie and sticks to them: bomb the crap out of Syria, if he must, but stay the hell out of our allies' airspace.

So, you agree with her. You're just not happy about it.

 

[Arkady]

So, you agree with her. You're just not happy about it.

Who would be happy about a dangerous stand-off?

 

[oicu812]

Of course it's dangerous.

But, other than carping, do you have anything to offer? What should we do instead of what we're doing?

besides talking about it in political chatrooms?

do whatever you feel you must...your a big bug now...
what should a big bug do?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Who would be happy about a dangerous stand-off?

No one I know. This is perhaps the closest we've been to "Nuclear midnight" since the Cuban missile crisis.

Is our current foreign policy a contributing factor? It's easy to say it's all Putin, but it does take two to tango. If Putin helped bring us to this point, then surely so did the President. Those who carry water for him will be loathe to admit that, but it will be true all the same.

The question then becomes, what to do about it now?

 

[Zam-Zam]

As an aside, this came out just about one month ago today:


The Pentagon announced last week that it would send up to a dozen F-15Cs to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey for operations over Syria. As The Daily Beast notes, the aircrafts' exact role remains unclear.


F-15Cs are armed with only air-to-air weaponry, making the plane unnecessary in operations against ISIS, which doesn't have a functioning air element. Instead, the jets could have one of two purposes in the region — they could either be used to help protect Turkey's border against periodic incursions by Syrian jets and helicopters.


Or, under certain circumstances, the F-15Cs could be used to help counter Russian activity over Syria. A hypothetical no-fly zone over northern Syria near the Turkish border, for instance, would have to be maintained using planes that could enforce the zone against both Russian and Syrian aircraft.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-moving-f-15cs-to-fight-over-syria-2015-11

Some might interpret that as provocative, I suppose.

 

[Arkady]

No one I know. This is perhaps the closest we've been to "Nuclear midnight" since the Cuban missile crisis.

I don't think so. I think we've been closer a number of times -- times when the US and Russia didn't have a common enemy to help keep our mutual enmities in check (the way we have today, when ultimately we each hate ISIS and Islamic terrorism, generally, more than we hate each other). More dangerous times, in my opinion, include the late 1960s, with the proxy war in Vietnam and the Warsaw Pact's invasion of Czechoslovakia. The early 80s, before the rise of Gorbachev, were also pretty tense -- the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US president calling them the "evil empire," etc. And the dissolution of the Soviet Union could have taken a much uglier turn. My own choice for "closest to nuclear midnight" would be the early 1990s, when Russia was coming apart in a chaotic way, and they flirted with empowering an ultra-nationalist madman, Vladimir Zhironovsky. His party peaked at 23% of the Duma, making it the single strongest party in the nation. We're talking about a psycho who was threatening to put fans on the border to blow radioactive waste across Europe, as well as conquering Alaska and Finland. He was absolutely nuts, and at one point he was out-polling Yeltsin for the presidency. Fortunately, the US helped come to Russia's economic rescue, and as the bleakness of the early 90s faded for most Russians, their flirtation with militaristic ultra-nationalism faded and Zhironovsky became a footnote that few seem to remember today.

If Putin helped bring us to this point, then surely so did the President.

I have specific relevant critiques of Obama's foreign policy. I think he's been too hawkish in both Syria and Libya, with the former, especially, infringing on a traditional area of Russian influence, which is obviously going to heighten tensions. So, I agree with your basic point. But such criticisms will only come across as shallow partisan carping if they're framed blandly as "let's shovel some blame at Obama." In order to be meaningful, you really need to get specific. What, specifically, ought Obama to have done differently?

 

[Zam-Zam]

I don't think so. I think we've been closer a number of times -- times when the US and Russia didn't have a common enemy to help keep our mutual enmities in check (the way we have today, when ultimately we each hate ISIS and Islamic terrorism, generally, more than we hate each other). More dangerous times, in my opinion, include the late 1960s, with the proxy war in Vietnam and the Warsaw Pact's invasion of Czechoslovakia. The early 80s, before the rise of Gorbachev, were also pretty tense -- the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US president calling them the "evil empire," etc. And the dissolution of the Soviet Union could have taken a much uglier turn. My own choice for "closest to nuclear midnight" would be the early 1990s, when Russia was coming apart in a chaotic way, and they flirted with empowering an ultra-nationalist madman, Vladimir Zhironovsky. His party peaked at 23% of the Duma, making it the single strongest party in the nation. We're talking about a psycho who was threatening to put fans on the border to blow radioactive waste across Europe, as well as conquering Alaska and Finland. He was absolutely nuts, and at one point he was out-polling Yeltsin for the presidency. Fortunately, the US helped come to Russia's economic rescue, and as the bleakness of the early 90s faded for most Russians, their flirtation with militaristic ultra-nationalism faded and Zhironovsky became a footnote that few seem to remember today.



I have specific relevant critiques of Obama's foreign policy. I think he's been too hawkish in both Syria and Libya, with the former, especially, infringing on a traditional area of Russian influence, which is obviously going to heighten tensions. So, I agree with your basic point. But such criticisms will only come across as shallow partisan carping if they're framed blandly as "let's shovel some blame at Obama." In order to be meaningful, you really need to get specific. What, specifically, ought Obama to have done differently?

If he had a coherent plan for Syria, I haven't discerned it. He seems to believe in fighting a war without really fighting a war. He drew red lines, and when they were crossed, he blinked.

To me, you either stay out of Syria, or you go in and fight with a clear objective of winning. You don't talk about 'containment' - that costs lives and leaves another war to fight later. If he has no stomach for war, I'm fine with that also. Then we should get out entirely; in fact, that would be the preferred option as far as I'm concerned. He wants it both ways, he can't have it, and so he puts everyone at risk and achieves nothing.

That's a muddled, and disastrous, foreign policy. It is a contributing factor to the mess in Syria. Will he fix it before the end of his term? Not likely. Step one would be admitting failure, and that will likely stop him dead in his tracks.

 

[Arkady]

To me, you either stay out of Syria, or you go in and fight with a clear objective of winning.

Which one do you prefer?

For my part, I think containment is preferable to large-scale involvement, though non-intervention would be better than either, in this case.

Your criticism reminds me a lot of the rote talking points of conservatives about Clinton's engagement in Yugoslavia, in the 1990s. Outlets like the National Review couldn't decide whether to come down in favor of greater or lesser engagement in Yugoslavia than the course Clinton followed, but there was a partisan political imperative to argue that what Clinton was doing --whatever that might end up being-- was dead wrong. So, they went with the safe, vague partisan argument that his middle way was wrong. They were sure that either you go with a full-scale "boots on the ground" invasion (fight with a clear objective of winning), or you don't intervene at all. They figured that since Clinton chose a middle way, then surely that way must be doomed to failure -- mere air strikes weren't going to stop the genocide or secure Bosnia, Kosovo, and Croatia. Clinton's route surely wouldn't lead to the fall of Karadzic and Milosovic. Right?

Although I criticize Obama's foreign policy, I'm enough of a student of history that I don't fall into that mindless template of National Review talking points. I know how Clinton's limited engagement in Yugoslavia actually turned out, here in the real world. I know that for a very limited investment of US blood and treasure, and with an actual return on international prestige, we managed to intervene in a way that had large, positive, long-term consequences. I'm not terribly hopeful Obama will be as successful as that in the Middle East, but I don't rule out the possibility.

 

[as seen on tv]

in related news, Russia this week tested a missile capable of destroying satellites (such as GPS, spy, and communication satellites) orbiting earth