The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly what I was thinking. How many times does he need to be able to blow up the planet before he's set?
I read somewhere that the current arsenals of US and Russia are sufficient to destroy the human civilization four times. Keep in mind they are significantly reduced from the cold war peak.
 
Yeah, the US and Russia have enough nukes to make the entire planet uninhabitable several times over.

Nah. There wouldn't be much left of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, but mankind would probably survive.

Living things can tolerate much greater exposure to radiation than previously assumed - healthy animal communities thrive on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactors. 'Nuclear winter' scenarios are melodramatic, speculative and evidence free. There's no reason to place much confidence in such predictions.

We won't know until we try of course, which hopefully won't be anytime soon, but humanity has more in common with the cockroach than an unpleasant character. My guess is that, post Armageddon, we'll be sifting through the ruins with the little buggers competing for scraps.
 
its like the Fall of the Roman Empire or something. Not defeated by some great emerging empire, rather by its own rotting.
Not with a bang, but with a w*nker.
 
The operational term is MAD (Mututally Assured Destruction). Both countries have 1000+ nukes and Putin does what he wishes. So, why would both countries having 2000+ nukes, would make any more difference? The existing arsenal is more than sufficient to level the other country multiple times over. Getting more will only reduce the size of debris left, which really doesn't make any difference at all.
Putin doing what he wishes is the problem. But he's not stupid. If USA's military capabilities are so much stronger AND they actually seem willing to use them he no longer will.

I think we're getting a bit hung up on the nuclear weapons bit in any case. Nuclear weapons are the showpiece of any military arsenal but are in practice - for the reason you identify as MAD - defunct. Saying you're going to spit polish and beef them up is just a show of strength. The only one Putin will listen to.
 
I just don't buy that. Putin isn't some dumbass who will get scared because the US builds a few nukes. He has to be outmaneuvered and outsmarted.
 
I just don't buy that. Putin isn't some dumbass who will get scared because the US builds a few nukes. He has to be outmaneuvered and outsmarted.

Same here. Make Ukraine more painful for him, make Syria more painful for him. Try to create internal political challenges for him, maybe engage in some minor cyber attacks. More nukes to add to the ones he also knows he can't avoid (and same applies the other way)? He'll read that as irrelevant.
 
Or, you know, cooperated with on a bilateral basis.

What does he have to offer that is constructive? Russia must be respected and accommodated to an extent, but that country would have to change its mindset a lot to become any sort of partner.
 
Imo the Reagan administration had the right idea in the 80s - drastically reduce the number of warheads so that only the minimum required for effective deterrence is retained, with no overkill. Unfortunately the Soviets were only willing to go partway down that road.

With nuclear proliferation those ideas are becoming irrelevant. The human future is more nukes, not less.
 
What does he have to offer that is constructive? Russia must be respected and accommodated to an extent, but that country would have to change its mindset a lot to become any sort of partner.

That's the whole point of cooperation, you come to the table and see what each other has to offer. You very clearly are stuck in a 30 year old cold war mindset. That's definitely not constructive.

That was the Obama policy.

:lol: riiiight.
 
Imo the Reagan administration had the right idea in the 80s - drastically reduce the number of warheads so that only the minimum required for effective deterrence is retained, with no overkill. Unfortunately the Soviets were only willing to go partway down that road.

With nuclear proliferation those ideas are becoming irrelevant. The human future is more nukes, not less.

Reagan verbally agreed to get rid of all of them. It wasn't the soviets who stopped that, it was his unwillingness to give up SDI.
 
I just don't buy that. Putin isn't some dumbass who will get scared because the US builds a few nukes. He has to be outmaneuvered and outsmarted.
Those who've been close to Putin say the only thing he respects is military power.
 
That's the whole point of cooperation, you come to the table and see what each other has to offer. You very clearly are stuck in a 30 year old cold war mindset. That's definitely not constructive.

That's a cop out. Because there are no great secrets in play, we broadly understand what the United States is, we broadly understand what Russia is, in terms of composition of population, economy, politics, and interests.

For example, it has been possibly the most relevant item for China to have trade relations with the US. So their relationship can start on the basis of that, with aspects of mutual gains. Constructive.

It has long been relevant for the US and Western Europe to cooperate on trade, international law (which enables in great part their own economic interests) and defense where their alliance ensures a multiplier effect on their respective capabilities. Constructive.

And so I ask again, what can the US and Russia be constructive about? What is Russia willing to concede?
 
I like the idea that it's the West that's stuck in the Cold War mindset, rather than the guy trying to rekindle his KGB past.
 
That's a cop out. Because there are no great secrets in play, we broadly understand what the United States is, we broadly understand what Russia is, in terms of composition of population, economy, politics, and interests.

For example, it has been possibly the most relevant item for China to have trade relations with the US. So their relationship can start on the basis of that, with aspects of mutual gains. Constructive.

It has long been relevant for the US and Western Europe to cooperate on trade, international law (which enables in great part their own economic interests) and defense where their alliance ensures a multiplier effect on their respective capabilities. Constructive.

And so I ask again, what can the US and Russia be constructive about? What is Russia willing to concede?

Trade, which seems to be the most important judging from your post. Why does Russia need to concede anything? The USAs insistence on exploitable relationships is the source of the world's dislike of them.

I like the idea that it's the West that's stuck in the Cold War mindset, rather than the guy trying to rekindle his KGB past.

The obsession with Russia, and drive to make them the enemy again suggests otherwise.
 
Trade, which seems to be the most important judging from your post. Why does Russia need to concede anything? The USAs insistence on exploitable relationships is the source of the world's dislike of them.



The obsession with Russia, and drive to make them the enemy again suggests otherwise.
Obsession? They annexed part of a country, killed masses of civilians in Syria and interfered with the US election. I don't particularly want them succeeding in their goal to divide Europe with racist parties, either. If you want to call that obsession, good oh.
 
Obsession? They annexed part of a country, killed masses of civilians in Syria and interfered with the US election. I don't particularly want them succeeding in their goal to divide Europe with racist parties, either. If you want to call that obsession, good oh.

Obsession, yes. Obviously the events in the Crimea were awful; everything else is rubbish (particularly the bit about killing civilians, you're really going to throw that one around while defending the US?). Putin exposed America as a relatively inept bully by shattering ISIS in Syria as well as the USAs Al Qaeda "allies" (!?!), and repeatedly hacked the most technologically advanced country in the world...I mean, I can see why the Obama administration is angry.
 
Trade, which seems to be the most important judging from your post. Why does Russia need to concede anything? The USAs insistence on exploitable relationships is the source of the world's dislike of them.

Trade of what? Russia has oil, gas and minerals, and a population of 143 million (and declining). Better trade relations with currently protectionist Brazil would be of greater interest than with Russia.

And you suggest Russia need not concede, but the US should engage in negotiation? Funny.
 
Trade of what? Russia has oil, gas and minerals, and a population of 143 million (and declining). Better trade relations with currently protectionist Brazil would be of greater interest than with Russia.

And you suggest Russia need not concede, but the US should engage in negotiation? Funny.

America has a large and growing Russia diaspora. Obviously there are plenty of goods that they would be eager to import from the old country. Additionally, the US needs a plethora of natural resources that Russia could offer, something I know all too well as a Canadian.

What I suggest is that the US try operating fairly in international trade and relations, something I also know all too well as a Canadian.
 
Why not? It's not like any jobs were outsourced to Russia. Trade creates jobs on both sides, albeit on a smaller scale.
Because there's basically nothing that Russia has that we don't already have. If we increased trade on an importation basis with Russia, it would deepen our trade deficit and mean the further replacement of American goods with unnecessary Russian ones.
 
America has a large and growing Russia diaspora. Obviously there are plenty of goods that they would be eager to import from the old country. Additionally, the US needs a plethora of natural resources that Russia could offer, something I know all too well as a Canadian.

What I suggest is that the US try operating fairly in international trade and relations, something I also know all too well as a Canadian.

The bolded has never in the history of of economics or trade been relevant. And your Canadian point proves mine, these resources are not unique. They are also available in many other countries, and freely traded across the globe. Of the staple minerals of oil, gas and iron ore, Russia has a controlling position in none of them (difference from having a large share, to a controlling share to enforce unilateral price controls).

My broader point is that a constructive relationship would necessitate a change in apparently Russia's understanding of itself and what threatens it. Because while they apparently feel either threatened by lack of influence over their neighbors, or simply an urge to invade a neighbor and shoot down an airliner every now and then, there will be no understanding with not just the US, but Western Europe either. Because I don't think Putin is willing to engage in any of that, I think we'll just stay as is. But in the as is status, as an american taxpayer (my sly method of claiming stakeholder status) I gain nothing from offering concessions to Russia. I believe in MAD theory, so I'm happy even with we have to play out the next 60 years as is.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/trump-putin-christmas-letter-russian-relations/

I'm pretty much always critical of emotional responses to anything, since they achieve nothing and sometimes even cause more harm than good. But I must indulge.... what the feck???!!! Obviously none of this is new, so I mostly keep suppressing the emotion but have to let it out. What the feck does aging, failing, authoritarian Russia have to offer the US? Surreal where we've arrived, holy shit... its like the Fall of the Roman Empire or something. Not defeated by some great emerging empire, rather by its own rotting.

Surely more than Saudi Arabia? We do business and are allies with plenty of authoritarian countries in the world.

Why wouldn't you NOT want to normalize relations with Russia?

Didn't Obama/Clinton try to do the same in '08? Reset and all that?

Why wouldn't you not try to normalize relations with Russia? This whole Red Scare hyperbole coming from the Left of all places is second only to CIA complaining about a foreign power rigging elections.
 
Putin doing what he wishes is the problem. But he's not stupid. If USA's military capabilities are so much stronger AND they actually seem willing to use them he no longer will.

I think we're getting a bit hung up on the nuclear weapons bit in any case. Nuclear weapons are the showpiece of any military arsenal but are in practice - for the reason you identify as MAD - defunct. Saying you're going to spit polish and beef them up is just a show of strength. The only one Putin will listen to.

Honestly, I don't mind a gung ho president. It's valid if people feel Putin needs to see some active measures against his invasion tactics....but then nukes is probably the worst way to go about that. Given Trump's previous comments on nukes, it's just a disaster waiting to happen. That's one bluster that can be easily called.
 
The bolded has never in the history of of economics or trade been relevant. And your Canadian point proves mine, these resources are not unique. They are also available in many other countries, and freely traded across the globe. Of the staple minerals of oil, gas and iron ore, Russia has a controlling position in none of them (difference from having a large share, to a controlling share to enforce unilateral price controls).

My broader point is that a constructive relationship would necessitate a change in apparently Russia's understanding of itself and what threatens it. Because while they apparently feel either threatened by lack of influence over their neighbors, or simply an urge to invade a neighbor and shoot down an airliner every now and then, there will be no understanding with not just the US, but Western Europe either. Because I don't think Putin is willing to engage in any of that, I think we'll just stay as is. But in the as is status, as an american taxpayer (my sly method of claiming stakeholder status) I gain nothing from offering concessions to Russia. I believe in MAD theory, so I'm happy even with we have to play out the next 60 years as is.

It's all relevant as every piece of imported and exported good contributes to your balance of trade. Remarkable that you would discount that. Russia has a lot of softwood lumber, which would be useful, although it's nearly impossible to trade that freely with the US.

The eastward expansion of NATO is what has Russia feeling threatened. Especially considering that the US went back on its word in that regard. A constructive relationship would require the US to behave respectfully and responsibly internationally. Hopefully Trump can rectify this when he drains the swamp.

So I was correct about your cold war mindset. The west has bigger problems than Russia and we'd do well to cooperate with countries that are more like us than not.
 
Surely more than Saudi Arabia? We do business and are allies with plenty of authoritarian countries in the world.

Why wouldn't you NOT want to normalize relations with Russia?

Didn't Obama/Clinton try to do the same in '08? Reset and all that?

Why wouldn't you not try to normalize relations with Russia? This whole Red Scare hyperbole coming from the Left of all places is second only to CIA complaining about a foreign power rigging elections.

The difference is that Saudi Arabia conceded something (many things initially) that the US wanted, namely alliance to counter Iran but also stop trying to invade Israel. From the US point of view SA is the willing bedrock of regional stability, even though I'd agree this has become more questionable in recent years. But look back at the 70s and 80s and you'll understand why there is a relationship there, and why it benefited both the US and the Saud family.

You don't want to normalize relations with Russia because Russia has been unwilling to normalize relations on any acceptable terms. Yes Obama and HRC tried, and they also thought Putin was one thing while he later proved to be another. And so did GWB. Putin has his own internal game, and he will play the external to satisfy the internal. It just so happens that the internal game is to constantly display how great Russia still is. How do you find common ground with that?
 
America has a large and growing Russia diaspora. Obviously there are plenty of goods that they would be eager to import from the old country. Additionally, the US needs a plethora of natural resources that Russia could offer, something I know all too well as a Canadian.

What I suggest is that the US try operating fairly in international trade and relations, something I also know all too well as a Canadian.

Russia's economy is weak and it's GDP tiny for such a huge nation despite it being oil rich. Italy despite being much smaller has a greater GDP. That's why they keep invading places to distract from their economic weakness.

The US in no way needs to invest in Russia as a trading partner, they can produce their own vodka. If Trump does go through with his protectionist rhetoric, he probably won't, then Russia is the least of their worries.
 
Counterweight to China? A good relationship with Russia will probably help in middle east too.

If Trump ever wants to challenge China, then he needs to cultivate better relationship with Russia and India.

China I've thought about, because there's the opposite precedent there. Mideast I can't see it, because I mainly rate that a mess in and of itself. Not solvable by any combination of outside efforts.
 
It's Christmas time.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...letter-from-putin-his-thoughts-are-so-correct

Trump shares letter from Putin: 'His thoughts are so correct'

President-elect Donald Trump on Friday praised Vladimir Putin and shared a Christmas letter the Russian president sent him.

"A very nice letter from Vladimir Putin; his thoughts are so correct," Trump said in a statement.

"I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path."

In the attached letter, Putin emphasized the importance of cooperation between the two countries.

"I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able – by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner - to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level," the Russian leader wrote.

The U.S. intelligence community has publicly accused Russia of interfering in the U.S. election. A secret CIA assessment reportedly concluded that the Kremlin interfered specifically to help Trump win.

Both Trump and Putin have denied Russian involvement.

gYMhfMY.png
 
The difference is that Saudi Arabia conceded something (many things initially) that the US wanted, namely alliance to counter Iran but also stop trying to invade Israel. From the US point of view SA is the willing bedrock of regional stability, even though I'd agree this has become more questionable in recent years. But look back at the 70s and 80s and you'll understand why there is a relationship there, and why it benefited both the US and the Saud family.

You don't want to normalize relations with Russia because Russia has been unwilling to normalize relations on any acceptable terms. Yes Obama and HRC tried, and they also thought Putin was one thing while he later proved to be another. And so did GWB. Putin has his own internal game, and he will play the external to satisfy the internal. It just so happens that the internal game is to constantly display how great Russia still is. How do you find common ground with that?

:lol::lol::lol:

The difference is that Saudi Arabia conceded something (many things initially) that the US wanted, namely alliance to counter Iran (whose democratically elected leader Mossadegh CIA deposed - Operation AJAX - in favor of the reviled Shah who favored US Oil companies but who two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people inspired the 1979 Islamic revolution.)

From the US point of view SA is the willing bedrock of regional stability, (other than funding or sponsoring extreme fundamentalist groups, like ahem Al-Qaeda who are dead set on destroying us, and other than sponsoring terrorists group in Iraq, Syria and most recently Yemen, they have been a bedrock of regional stability) even though I'd agree this has become more questionable in recent years.

But look back at the 70s and 80s and you'll understand why there is a relationship there, and why it benefited both the US and the Saud family (you mean we secure the oil, you peg the price of oil to USD, you buy $Billions of dollars weapons from us, you purchase trillions of US Treasuries, I think I get the gist of the relationship. It's been going on since Eisenhower in the 50's and we are willing to close an eye to the all the naughty things Saudi Barbaria does domestically and abroad. Sometimes we even fight their proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. All in the name of democracy)


You don't want to normalize relations with Russia because Russia has been unwilling to normalize relations on any acceptable terms. Yes Obama and HRC tried, and they also thought Putin was one thing while he later proved to be another. (Yeah, I mean we just tried to expand NATO at every step, and put an anti-missile shield in Poland, and tried to marshal the Ukraine opposition and install our own guy in there we have done nothing that could be perceived as aggressive towards Russia. We almost went to nuclear war in the 60's during the missile Cuban crisis but that was a different era. Blame it on JFK ;)
 
Last edited:
If the US are serious about bringing back manufacturing (including electronics) there's loads of resources Russia has that either aren't economically available, or are only available at very high environmental costs within US borders. Can't see that happen though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.