Search results

I know that your mind is made up, and you're not going to be persuaded to change it. I know that trying to get you to learn from history is pretty pointless. But maybe, maybe you can realize that the way that you argue does nothing but make you look ignorant, and your position look stupid...

France also has a different stance towards the use of nuclear weapons. They believe in 'nuclear warning shots,' effectively. Firing off one or two warheads so you know they're serious, instead of 'nothing until full strategic launch' like much of the world largely tends towards.

Probably expensive as hell, but if it lets you clear the skies and the enemy's latest-generation SAMs with minimal losses, worth it.

No. If it's in your air-space without your permission, you can shoot it down if you want.

I don't know why you, or anyone else arguing against Ukraine bother either. There's basically two arguments against supporting Ukraine: 1. Isolationism. 2. Believing Russian propaganda. Neither is rational.

The US Federal budget for 2023 was ~6.134 trillion. Total US aid to Ukraine since the war began has been ~75 billion. That would make US aid 1.2% of the federal budget, if it was all over that single fiscal year. It wasn't, and the war's been on for a little over two years now, so we're...

Most nations that are supporting Ukraine, are spending the GDP equivalent of spare change. Further, the issues causing serious economic harm are not supporting Ukraine, but their own domestic policies, particularly retarded green energy policies and the usual glut of bureaucratic...

I just do not get why some people keep thinking that even if Russia is winning, the war is supposedly close to ending. Yes, if you only start counting since the end of the Kherson offensive, the Russians have had more territorial gains in their offensives than the Ukrainians have had in theirs...

When one side's opening position is "You completely surrender, plus pay for the privilege of having been invaded by us," it's abundantly clear that they're either not interested in compromise, or they're looking to compromise to things that are still utterly unreasonable.

That looks like a 'I don't think you had the right leadership style, but you're still part of the team' kind of move.

No, if they were weak, they wouldn't be able to do such things so flagrantly. It is a sign of brittleness though, or at least they perceive their own power as being brittle. It's very real power, but it may shatter if put under too much pressure.

If that's what you meant, then say that. Because the USSR absolutely presented a threat to the US in general, and it wasn't just nuclear weapons it was capable of hitting the US proper with, though those certainly would have been the most destructive.

I'm not going to argue about this, just go read more history.

If you're going to memory hole the entire Cold War, there's not much productive discussion to be had here.

This is irrelevant to what I was trying to engage Rocinante on. People who say 'I just don't think we should be involved,' I think their position is unwise, but I respect the principle behind it. Rocinante has not just been saying 'I don't think we should be involved.' He, and almost everyone...

There was also no real feasibility of Japan being able to feasibly strike against the US mainland in the 1940's. Didn't stop them from wreaking a hell of a lot of death and destruction, because they thought that the US had a weak spirit.

I'm trying to give Rocinante the benefit of the doubt and engage him in a constructive way, to see if he has any actual understanding of the concepts he's so opinionated about, or if he's able to learn about them. Others trying to answer for him adds nothing useful to the exchange.

Yes, but you're still answering a question asked of someone else, which does not helpfully contribute to the conversation.

Your name appears to be 'Cherico' not 'Rocinante.'

I'm going to ask you a question then. Set aside the details of the war in Ukraine completely. How does a nation win a war?