Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Booboobang" data-source="post: 1111299" data-attributes="member: 86230"><p>You see, this argument works both ways: if you provoke a nuclear power and they drop the bomb, it's game over, I'd argue that's more likely when you essentially show a strong man to be weak, and thus he has nothing to lose. Whereas I would argue that regardless of how Russia saved face here, it had already served its purpose in preventing nuclear edging, and Russia was an embarrassment to the rest of the world. It demonstrated that you cannot simply attack developed nations and expect the rest of the world to sit back and watch. There is something a tad sinister about how it only seems to be an issue when its on the continent and people dont seem to care about imperialism from other nations elsewhere but thats another topic.</p><p></p><p>The north korea examples is a tad silly, they dont have the man power or resources to even try it and trying to learn anything from russia i.e. a theoritically bigger nation bullying a smaller one just doesnt fit there since south korea doms them in every metric. Especially since while they are backed by china the south is backed by the USA so it cancels out. I would also say nucleur proliferation is very unlikely, since most of the world is now under the banner of two super powers, i.e. china or the USA. Nations in this sphere dont need nukes since they have a form of protection regardless, and in this case you likely just have a cold war 2. </p><p></p><p>Basically, both options could lead to an all out nuclear war. Which is why, in an ideal world, there is a diplomatic resolution that the Ukrainians and Russians will accept. Other than that, both options are turd sandwiches, will be interesting to see when the west steps in and forces a diplomatic ceasefire, because unfortunately for the Ukrainians, that seems to be the most likely outcome to me. Who knows though, maybe the crimea situation has made the west far more hawkish on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Booboobang, post: 1111299, member: 86230"] You see, this argument works both ways: if you provoke a nuclear power and they drop the bomb, it's game over, I'd argue that's more likely when you essentially show a strong man to be weak, and thus he has nothing to lose. Whereas I would argue that regardless of how Russia saved face here, it had already served its purpose in preventing nuclear edging, and Russia was an embarrassment to the rest of the world. It demonstrated that you cannot simply attack developed nations and expect the rest of the world to sit back and watch. There is something a tad sinister about how it only seems to be an issue when its on the continent and people dont seem to care about imperialism from other nations elsewhere but thats another topic. The north korea examples is a tad silly, they dont have the man power or resources to even try it and trying to learn anything from russia i.e. a theoritically bigger nation bullying a smaller one just doesnt fit there since south korea doms them in every metric. Especially since while they are backed by china the south is backed by the USA so it cancels out. I would also say nucleur proliferation is very unlikely, since most of the world is now under the banner of two super powers, i.e. china or the USA. Nations in this sphere dont need nukes since they have a form of protection regardless, and in this case you likely just have a cold war 2. Basically, both options could lead to an all out nuclear war. Which is why, in an ideal world, there is a diplomatic resolution that the Ukrainians and Russians will accept. Other than that, both options are turd sandwiches, will be interesting to see when the west steps in and forces a diplomatic ceasefire, because unfortunately for the Ukrainians, that seems to be the most likely outcome to me. Who knows though, maybe the crimea situation has made the west far more hawkish on this. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top