President Obama

[chatfsh]

A little funny?  You just gave me the best laugh I

[Wolf]

@ Dante: Yep. The way God intended.

@ Hwi: Personally, I don't mind that the EU might end up running things at the G20. I think Americans, dazzled once again at the thought of "making history," allowed a lot of extraordinarily stupid things to go on... like spending more in a month than George W. Bush did in a term. It's time for Europe to lead the show, at least they have a sense of propriety. However, the only thing I really want Europe to do is to reach deep down in side for the testicular fortitude to build their own ballistic missile shield--then, when Russia's oil runs out, they can put up two fingers to the east. Furthermore, for whatever reason, European conservatives (Sarkozy, Merkel, et al) have always struck me as somehow more trustworthy than American liberals (Obama, Clinton, etc.) ... I don't know why, though I suppose you'd think it'd even out in the end.

[Dante]

Personally I like the France/Germany pact that so often told Blair that he was an uppity twat who was far too close to Bush. The enemy of my enemy...

Hey Wolf, where'd your friend Dan go? I was reading through some old topics, and wondered.

[Wolf]

The short answer? He went to college, and has been pretty busy ever since--too busy to visit a Dune forum it seems. But, I think that's fair--I rarely posted when I was in college myself, and only after having graduated have I really made any sort of comeback. Dan, also, only started posting here because I asked him to: I suppose I needed a second opinion in one of our epic existence-of-God or communism-vs.-capitalism brawls. Which is ironic, since his views and mine are also nearly diametrically opposed.

[MrFlibble]

That's an easy guess - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x49la_future-sound-of-london-my-kingdom

Both thumbs up for that Caid! ;D ;D ;D

[chatfsh]

Wolf

[Dante]

The US already has enough firepower to vaporise the planet five times over. One wonders exactly how much a country needs to feel safe.

[Wolf]

Yes, and there's surprisingly little profit in blasting the world five-times over. I have no qualms about reducing our offensive nuclear arsenal to, say, the point where we could only destroy the world once-over, but I think it is a foolish and stupid thing to abandon or cut spending on a missile shield, or on any kind of missile defense. The next war, when it comes, will see individuals attempting to destroy American and European carrier battle groups through massed ICBM- and cruise missile-strikes. We need small, portable, reliable anti-missile systems capable of handling up to thousands of incoming targets. We need the same sort of system, or better, to safeguard our major cities. After this phase in the war--the first-strike period--what we need to accomplish can be accomplished with conventional weapons, and by that I mean the systematic destruction of the attacker's military infrastructure, industry and manufacturing capability.

[Dante]

There's nothing wrong with defense, but I would argue that a lot of what needs to be accomplished could be done so far more cheaply through rearrangement of what the country has, rather than production of more stuff. Break down the nukes, get rid of the bad stuff, recycle whatever's left into defense rather than offense. Perhaps the world needs a stern example more than a big man with a stick. At least that way the "bad guys" shouldn't mysteriously coincide with "whoever I don't like right now."

Besides which, the portrayal of foreign powers as threats, with their sights firmly set on Washington, is getting a bit outdated. Granted there are some opportunist states and outright dim leaders out there, but it would be nice to see China and Russia as trade partners rather than an enemy who's playing nice for now.

Not Iran though, that fucker needs taken out asap.

[chatfsh]

With all due respect, when it comes to defending this country against the threat of  a nuclear attack,  I

[Wolf]

Dante, while I certainly understand and respect that viewpoint, I'm afriad that what you suggest is impossible. Nuclear weapons cannot be "broken down" and subsequently "recycled" into "defense rather than offense." I only wish it were so, unfortunately, that is not the case. A nuclear weapon, you may have heard, makes a large explosion. This, indeed, can be used either offensively (against enemy military formations, bases or civilian populations) or defensively (against invading enemy military formations, bases, or to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft and the seas of enemy fleets). You're a smart man, but I'll take the extra step and spell it out for you that, despite the usage, the technical manifestation of the weapon in either case is identical. I believe what you mean to say is that, perhaps, our nuclear weapon systems should somehow be recylced into a non-nuclear anti-missile system? To be fair, it would be far cheaper just to build the AMS, as an AMS is a vastly differentiated system from an offensive (or defensive) nuclear arsenal--and some components of it don't even feature missiles,  while no components of most AMS schemes feature nuclear warheads. Read up on the subject, it's too extensive for me to get into, but, lately, I have begun to lose the ability to appreciate fundamentally uninformed comments that contribute to a flawed perception of modern warfare. In the end, those perceptions are sometimes translated into policy, and that's when we get boned but good. Don't worry, I don't particularly accuse you here--you at least have a brain and make an effort. My mind is beginning to wander to all the idiots who think that Norman Angell was right.

Regarding your second paragraph, you're half right and you're half wrong. You're wrong in that nations such as Russia, China and Iran actually do represent "threats" to the world-as-we-know-it, but right in that they do not threaten Washington. They threaten you, in Russia's case, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in China's case, and Israel in Iran's case. This is why Europeans need to build their AMS so Americans don't have to--really, you say on the one hand that you don't want or need our help, but then take no measures to protect yourselves... what will you do when Russia's oil runs out? I mean, my God, the Japanese are even considering acquiring a nuclear arsenal of their own! Frankly, I think The Next War is something of an inevitability, and I'm fairly certain that at least China will be involved.

[Caid Ivik]

With all due respect, when it comes to defending this country against the threat of  a nuclear attack,  I

[Caid Ivik]

Not Iran though, that fucker needs taken out asap.

Hm? Why? How? Do the Iranians present some kind of lesser race, not deserving to share the air and resources of the world?

[Wolf]

I don't know, Caid, for the most part I agree with you--especially about Europe needing an all-encompassing missile shield--but the last half of your post sounds like you've bought into Russian propaganda. It's the Americans' fault that the Russians put missiles in Kaliningrad and Belarus? Tangentially, but that's ignoring the fact in the first place that the Russians actively undertook endeavors to threaten European security. Sure, you can blame the US--for attempting to install a marginally useful missile shield--but ignoring the fact that Russia compelled you to do so by threatening you with the very weapons the US intended to protect you against seems only to validate American activities. Russia's the country that's threatening you with missiles. The United States, whatever it's doing--marking it's territory, doing a shoddy job of installing a missile shield, whatever--did not. This is why I say, "do it yourselves," because you'll never be satisfied with our doing it. But if you use this time as an excuse to put two fingers up to the United States, and ignore Russia, well, just what are we going to do without you all?

[Caid Ivik]

Both US and Russia have their strategies and adapt them to each other. I speak for myself - criticizing US opinion/strategy doesn't imply I support the Russian one. I'm not sure, if there was any word of short-ranged missiles before the project of radar in Brdy started, so I'll try to tell it abstractly... The goal should be to maintain peace. I assume that when many countries have the ability to virtually destroy each other by nuclear arsenals, they won't use them at all, as they have respect for the inevitability of the consequent retaliation. Thus they don't only exclude the use of nuclear weapons from escalated conflicts, but also won't provoke the others to perform a nuclear strike. This is relevant especially on a tactical level; it really tempts when you see targets like hardened al-Qaeda bunkers or US Navy fleets. If there really are devices, which may disbalance the equilibrium set by strategic nuclear arsenals, then the both sides will naturally try to have (or counter) them. The question is - why should we do so? Why the Americans, fighting already in two complicated wars, make such a disbalancing move against Russia? WW2 also didn't start in a one day, but was preceded by amassing of military power on the borders of participants. Another problem is that Americans do it on a foreign territory now. We are again being drawn into their game again.

In short, they both seem to want a war. It'll be nice if Obamists stop it, but we'll see. What I criticize is how Americans view their national policy as the only good one in the world. I see no reason why should we turn Czechs to a forward guard to fend off Iskanders. That's exactly what Russians did with us before!

[Dante]

I was thinking logistically, not physically. A nuclear warhead is rather self-contained, if you try to break it down into constituant parts, it will... break down. After a fashion. But warheads are mounted on missiles, and those are just so much fuel and machinery. They can be broken down. Not that they have to be, I primarily meant the exterior parts of the nuclear war machine. Personnel, computers, office space, military departments, these can all be broken down and recycled (retrained) for a different purpose. Far cheaper to turn four fifths of the surplus into defense than keep it on standby while building up offensive abilities. And if an AMS doesn't use the leftover missiles, melt them down, sell the bits to Germany and they can make cars out of them to sell back to you. Win-win. :P

As for other countries, I prefer to treat people as friends until they prove otherwise. Russia and China make overtures on occasion but a good step towards not being enemies might be to stop treating them as enemies.

Iran, of course, is not a friend, but that's just my opinion.

For anyone who might be interested, no, I don't really support Israel either.

[Sneakgab]

Not to say that I support this view myself (don't really have any views on the matter because I am not knowleadegable enough about it), but some would venture that Israel is a country that in it's perhaps arbirtrary creation, displaced many people (taking their land) and caused much strife and chaos. Of course, there is the possibility that that is just the normal amount of strife and chaos that would have been present with or without Israel, but most likely the creation of Israel increased the level of conflict beyond what it was there before and what it would have been after.

Most certainly, I have never heard a decent argument as to why Israel should have been created and how the taking of land was justified. Not to say there are no such arguments of course.

[Wolf]

Caid: I understand what you're saying--that there exists a balance of power and that's better than the alternative--and I fundamentally disagree with this assessment. Between the United States and Russia, sure, there is some form of a balance of power--in many ways, this, of course, is debatable. However, between Russia and Eastern Europe there is no such thing. Right now, Russia uses the leverage of its oil stockpiles to compell Eastern Europe to do what it wants. When the oil runs out, Russia hopes to use strategic arms to accomplish the same thing. Sure, maybe that's U.S. propaganda, but that's what I see happening, and it does not seem out of character at all for the Russia that you or I know. Also, for the sake of clarity, the line, "Americans just want to mark their territory" was the phrase I took issue with. First of all, don't flatter yourself, second of all, there's a very good reason why Eastern Europe should have an AMS, see below:

But, barring all of that, your point that I understand and support the most is that you don't want to be drawn into another game between great powers. And this is why I'm telling you that a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a good thing, and also why I'm telling you that I'd rather you do it yoursleves--if we do it for you, arguably, you're still pawns, I get that. The problem is that, in order for you not to be drawn into another game of international chess, you need ballistic missile defense against Russia--and, honestly, against the U.S. and even Western Europe, your airspace needs to be secure. Russia's not going to wage conventional war against Eastern Europe (neither are we, but I'm doing you a huge favor here by being fair to both sides, when I think it's obvious that the reality is otherwise--Russia's on your border, we're not), and you are not going to pursue nuclear weapons of your own. Realistically, your only option is an AMS of some form or another--it's the only way you can pursue policy independently in the long term when Russia's oil runs out and when Russia's missiles are the only resource it has left to it.

And whenever people tell me that they hate it when Americans think of their policy as inherently the best one, I always ask: then show me the alternative. Russia's? Yours?

Dante: I get what you're saying. Yeah, the missiles themselves are useless as interceptors. Interceptors need to be small, fast, and maneuverable. ICBMs just need to carry a payload and carry it high. And you're right in that it takes a lot of energy to maintain a nuclear arsenal--nuclear warheads are only "good" for about five years before they need to be replaced. This is actually why it's kind of funny to see Russia invoking START and agreeing to work on "reducing arms"--in reality, a distinct majority of Russia's nuclear arms havn't been maintained since '89--they couldn't do what they were supposed to do even if they tried. It also means that Russia's arsenal is only 20-30% in reality of what it appears to be on paper, and why I feel that any arms reduction treaty between Russia and the United States is... really only going to involve the United States. Russia's only going to reduce the arms that wouldn't work in the first place.

As for treating these countries like enemies... I think "enemy" is too strong a term. I view these countries as opportunistic, unstable, insecure entities that have pretensions for grander power than their neighbors or any sense of international peace allows. None of them want to be on U.S. soil--I've already admitted that, so they're not really "my" enemy--but I know they wouldn't mind seeing U.S. servicemen die or U.S. fleets sunk. What I've said before and I'll say again is that if anyone should be afraid, it's the countries closest to Russia and China, that are in their domain of intended hegemony. Sure, that's hypocritical, but our hegemony has benefited you folks a lot... I'd love to see you make an argument for why you'd prosper as well under Russian or Chinese dominance. I'm not saying it has to be us or them, I'd much rather it'd be us, them, and you, but if you have to choose between the two--because, again, let's look at Eastern Europe, are they really going to build an AMS on their own? Are they? You know as well as I do--what would it be? Us, or them?

[Caid Ivik]

There is no such a political entity like "Eastern Europe". There are many states here, each of them has its own foreign policy, which changes with every change of the ruling party. Although Russia has no border with Slovakia, even here we have one party oriented towards them, other towards USA and another one preferring to stay neutral. And in general we're integrating into EU, where the states have agreed to treat each other as equals. The fact Europeans prefer discussions before wars doesn't mean that only Russia or USA are relevant for the balance of nuclear arms. That's why these countries (from Poland to Bulgaria) dismantled their strategic arsenals. Only threats in this part of the world are nationalists, which sometimes gain power and then cause a war, like in Bosnia...which seems petty in comparison to the glorious crusades in Iraq or Afghanistan, but people feel it. Anti-ballistic missiles wouldn't solve the least bit of this problem.

[Andrew]

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

[Wolf]

Understandable, but I think "Eastern Europe" is generally-recognized as a region and, since we were talking about regional politics (it would be rather difficult to craft a missile solely to fit Slovakia's airspace alone, and Russian missiles in Kaliningrad do, indeed, threaten more than just one nation), I thought it rather appropriate. Sometimes, as I've just learned, one shouldn't assume that everything one says is the result of ignorance--Sorry, Dante. Would you prefer it if I just listed the countries in Eastern Europe as opposed to using the umbrella term?

I also like how you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan as if they, somehow, are relevant to this conversation. Absolutely, the Glorious Crusade was a mistake, and the objectives we wanted accomplished in those countries could have been achieved better by other means, but, let's be honest, even Slovakia supported some form of military action in Afghanistan, as it did in Bosnia, so we'd probably still be fighting there. Iraq, well... everyone makes mistakes. In any case, even if it was all sweets and roses over there, it still wouldn't alter my perception that, if you want Slovakia to continue having it's own foreign policy, then you (ridiculous, I know, it isn't like you're the Slovakian head of state) really should pursue some form of AMS in the near-future. Certainly, nationalists are a problem, among other things that Slovakia has to contend with, European Union nonsense and so on--and if you find it difficult to do more than one thing at a time, fortunately, you have allies who are willing to help you. Oh, but wait, I see why that's a bad thing. But, really, how is this even an issue? I thought the matter was pretty incontrovertible... Mr. Wolf, would you like to be protected from ICBMs or not? I think I'll talk the former, Bob. Mr. Wolf, would you like to pay for it, or make the Americans pay for it? You know, Bob, if the Americans could pay for it, that would be great. I mean... am I insane, here? Somehow, this dynamic results in Americans being the bad guys? I... guess I don't get it.

EDIT: Well, I just realized, if you wanted Slovakia to have its own foreign policy in the strictest, strictest sense, you shouldn't have joined the EU, but, too late now, I suppose. I wonder what will happen when the first state tries to leave the Union?

[Caid Ivik]

"Region" has a meaning in geography and other theoretical sciences. But you've misunderstood my understanding of EU's and NATO's role in this "region". Let's begin with an example. Since 70s Greeks and Turks were arming themselves against each other at a dangerous rate. When you think by "regions", you may understand it as a strengthening of south-eastern area of NATO; while solving of such moments is one of the reasons, why we need the alliance. Secondly, the value of operations in Iraq etc is more in strengthening the bonds between the countries than their real objectives. Then a third point, EU has its merits for being no military pact; authority of her summits comes from economic prosperity instead of wars (why do you find that a nonsense?). The results of a common EU policy are different in each country of the "region", what helps (at least) with experience for companies in all of the member states. When you think of "regions" first, you omit these highly important traits, as well as the reason, why they are more important than security from a hypothetical attack by non-EU nuclear powers.

It is irrelevant who is "good" or "bad" here and there, one just has to understand the peculiarities of elements and their relations, before he tries to understand the whole. Look at Iraq again: Americans and British started to focus on allying local popular/tribal leaders instead of empowering the central government. A light from the shadows shall spring.

When we look at the matter realistically, a threat of any major attack from Russia, Turkey or Germany is deterred by French and British nuclear arsenal. And protection from ICBMs...nobody would spend such a weapon against a 5-10 million country (theoretically, Kaposvar in Hungary or Bezmer in Bulgaria are potential targets; but only because of American presence, not because there are any significant threats for ICBM-wielding countries; other point, it seems the ABM facility would lure rather short-range cruise missiles, which are best countered by air force and long-range SAMs like S-300, which is by the way already present in Slovakia and integrated into NATO air-defence system). So it would be protecting only Americans - or more exactly, they'll protect themselves in our territory. Like the Russians did after 1968. I don't want anybody to spend money for military operations done here! I think Obamists themselves already realized the backwardness of this "arming up periphery" policy, when the president speaks of nuclear disarmament. But we'll see.

[Wolf]

(sigh)

1. Come on, Caid, "region" also has a meaning in political science.

2. I never said anything about the EU's economic prosperity being "nonsense," I was simply referring to EU "nonsense" in general, such as internal politicking, France and Germany's past transgressions regarding economic limitations, the accusations that Eastern European countries joining the EU serve only the interests of Western European countries, and that sort of thing. Honestly, Caid, either you made a concerted and shameless attempt to distort the obvious meaning of what I said, or, we should be having this conversation in Slovak.

3. Again, Iraq is not relevant.

4. Your last paragraph is a pretty fair argument. The ICBM-defense only needs to be there to protect an American presence. Further, Western Europe's nuclear arsenal is probably enough to deter people threatening Eastern Europe. Fair enough--from Slovakia's point of view. But, again, I think you totally missed my point. A missile shield in Eastern Europe would protect far more than the tiny little nation of Slovakia with it's 5 to 10 million people, and it would protect far more than simply American strategic interests. You oscillate between a purely national understanding of this issue and a regional understanding of this issue whenever it suits your purpose, Caid.

5. "Obamists" is a messed-up term. There aren't actually "Obamists" here in any sort of political or theoretical sense. I know, (I was a Russian major in college, it was fun times) that it's sort of a convention in European, and particularly Eastern European political thinking, to assign people names of this sort--Chekists, Trotskyists, Hitlerists and so on--but there is no cogent or enveloping political philosophy that Obama defines, or that anyone particularly follows. A majority of Americans merely worship Obama as the messiah simply because he is not George W. Bush (which, in itself, is pretty fair). Your use of the term "Obamists" is misleading and is a failure to understand the peculiarities of elements and their relations before attempting to understand the whole.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you can see I'm pointing mostly at your generalisations and obvious terms. American Union functions in a different way as the European; what we consider international is for you (because you look from outside) an "internal politicking". It is not about making offers and setting defence against hypothetical/wannabe foes, but rather about understanding what kind of interests are going here. You say Americans want to protect us and "far more" by building the thing here. I guess it is natural to ask from what and to present what is considered a threat here. It seems very suspicious, when somebody comes to you and tells you the other guy on the street is a threat for you. Which people, really threatening Eastern Europe, can be deterred by European nuclear arsenals and American AMBs? This, this or this? I'm not trying to argue, I try to describe the situation, why do we dare to disagree with the radar plan.

[chatfsh]

Y