US May Pull nuclear deal to punish russia

Unsurprising, to be honest. Pulling an unpopular deal that might not have passed anyway makes for good press, if nothing else. Lemons, make lemonade, etc.

At times I wonder how the whole situation would have played out had US forces not been busy in Iraq. I'm not saying we would have invaded or anything, but I wonder how the players involve would have reacted.
 
Raesvelg said:
Unsurprising, to be honest. Pulling an unpopular deal that might not have passed anyway makes for good press, if nothing else. Lemons, make lemonade, etc.

At times I wonder how the whole situation would have played out had US forces not been busy in Iraq. I'm not saying we would have invaded or anything, but I wonder how the players involve would have reacted.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Ruskies give a shit anymore to be honest. I think Putin spent a lot more on the armed forces than we believed. Europe would never get involved with Russia, we're too dependant on their oil and gas. So America would be on their own (although fuckwit Brown would probably join in).
 
I theorize that they would have entered South Ossetia anyway.... but probably not moved into Georgia proper. Putin has spent a fair amount on military funding, but from most of the reports out of the Georgian conflict the Russian Army is still in no shape to take on a first-tier military.
 
america has to stay out of stuff that doesnt concern them!
 
The question, however, is to what extent a matter does not concern the US. Arguably, the Russian invasion of Georgia directly concerns us, as Georgia is seeking NATO membership, is generally considered an ally of the US, and so on.

To say that the US should simply isolate itself from world affairs is a trifle naive, considering the resource consumption necessary to sustain the current US economy. In a sense, the US has the tiger by the tail, so to speak. We consume the most, because we're on top, and we're on top, because we consume the most. To step back invites another power to fill the same role (and many countries and polities would love to do so), and while the "Pax Americana" might not be as benevolent as it could be, it's the devil we know.
 
Cerb said:
america has to stay out of stuff that doesnt concern them!
Click to expand...

Global energy supply concerns EVERYONE, and we happen to be the only nation on the planet capable of defeating Russia if they decide to put a stranglehold on Europe's energy supply.
 
I don't wanna go to Russia :\
 
Man people are bellicose. Russian's are wrong, and so is everyone else that thinks we need a war. I realize it is a dangerously passive position to take, but why can't we all just get along.

This Russia shit is just building on the apparently "stalled" cold war.
 
Arctyrael said:
I realize it is a dangerously passive position to take, but why can't we all just get along.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being bellicose, it's a question of mathematics, and it's going to have to get answered within the next century.

With an expanding population, a finite set of resources, and a particular standard of living to aspire to... Eventually, barring some significant improvements in resource extraction technology/technique, the world as a whole is going to hit a wall, whereupon there won't be enough resources to maintain or achieve the desired standard of living for all parties involved.

In a perfect world, technological advancement will stay ahead of the curve, but that really only applies to a portion of the world's population. There is a distinct risk that the sort of dystopian future where the 1st world lives in luxury while the 3rd world scrabbles for scraps in exchange for whatever remaining natural resources can be exploited from their countries will come to pass.

The theory that perhaps the 1st world can simply learn to make do with less, while seemingly noble, is also fairly unrealistic. In truth, the key is learning to do more with what is already consumed, and that we are doing. Greater industrial efficiency will reduce the expansion of the footprint of the 1st world significantly, which is pretty much the only reason I have any support at all for the "Green" movement.

Of course, there's also the possibility that the next major global war will be sparked by the Green movement. When terms like "carbon guilt" start getting tossed around, I feel a mite nervous. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a sufficiently cynical "Green" government would push a war on some small country in the name of forcing them to reform their environmental policies. In a future where economies may begin to run into difficulties over "Carbon Debt" and "Carbon Guilt" and "Carbon whatever", a short, victorious war may seem quite appealing as a means of both satisfying the electorate and distracting them from more pressing issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top