War in Ukraine

[DCI Harry Batt]

Two Russian missiles launched from the Black Sea crossed Romanian territory this morning. (Also Moldova, but that's not in NATO). I believe this is the first time .

Eek

[anton pulisov]

This is classic Putin trying to make people nervous just before they sign off on sending Ukraine more stuff.

He really is a gobshite and I still hope somebody from within Russia could overthrow him and we could be done with this bullshit.

[ad hoc]

The Romanian MoD has now denied that they crossed Romania. Make of that what you will.

[Satchmo Distel]

Well why not? If you are Cuba and Obama normalises relations a bit, surely you keep a contingency plan ready in case the president after Obama sanctions you again? You have to be ready.

Maybe replace "always" with "probably"? There's a small chance we may grow out of nationalism as a species.

[MsD]

Also there is the fear of invasion which has been a definite continuity since the early 18th century which further drives the Russian paranoia.

It isn’t *paranoia* if they’re out to get you. The US attacks on Japan were primarily a warning to the USSR, and various US admins have looked at the feasibility of a first strike. Even JFK. Surrounded Russia with nukes then threw a shitfit when nukes were stationed in Cuba. They’ve also undermined Russian leaders and meddled indirectly even when Russia’s been minding her own business.
That’s why Putin is where he is and has considerable support even from Russians who think he’s an evil bastard.
The Russian fear and desire for peace was palpable the first time I visited. No-one slagged off “those Western/US bastards” to me. However, I’ve heard plenty of extreme anti-Russian rhetoric from Americans and Brits who think themselves reasonable people.
(Talking pre-Putin now.)

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

I presume you're in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons too, TAB? Logic demands that

No, They're obviously two completely different things. If you start from the premise that nuclear weapons exist, are dangerous, but confer you with substantial power, and are on balance bad, then it's perfectly consistent to say that if you already have nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't just give them up, and that you should also limit who else develops them. I mean it's obvious that they are completely different things. The iranian theocracy potentially developing nuclear weapons is a solid argument in itself for not giving them up if you already have them.

Unilaterally giving up your nuclear weapons and leaving nato during the cold war, on the grounds that it would help spark a cycle of disarmament across the world is just solipsistic nonsense isn't it? I mean just how impressed were the US, USSR and China really going to be by the outstanding moral example set by Britain? It's a shocking case of underpants gnome logic, which in reality would be secondary in impact to the UK pulling out of Nato. It ignores that there are other people out there, who are not you, who have their own motivations and have their own imperial ambitions. It just doesn't make any sense on any level. It's one thing for people to be going on like this back in the day, but That in 2023 there are still people out there proposing that the UK leaves Nato is staggering.

Also fuck me lads. People are paying far too much attention to Nefertiti throwing a dead cat on the table by lashing out in his increasingly personal fashion. It's not racist to always be worried about the institutional imperialism of Russia, because as has been pointed out, I wasn't saying anything about russian people, who generally have fuck all say in the bullshit their govt gets up to, But the key thing to remember is that even on its weakest day, Russia is not a fucking country in the way that Ireland is a country, it's a fucking massive and brutal empire. Even when they didn't have an arse to their trousers in the mid nineties, they were slaughtering chechnyans. (and getting slaughtered in return) There's a reason that all those countries in eastern europe insisted on joining nato. People in the UK may not be familiar with their history with russia in its various forms, but the people of those countries are.

[ad hoc]

So, let me be sure I understand this. The UK having nuclear weapons is a good thing because it acts as a deterrent and protects their people against the expansionist and imperialist designs of foreign powers (in this argument formerly the USSR and now Russia). But other countries having them is bad because those people shouldn't be protected against the expansionist and imperialist designs of foreign powers. I'm wondering in what way Iranian people are different from British people, I mean aside from the obvious one.

[E10 Rifle]

In general, nuclear-armed states start more wars than non-nuclear-armed ones.

[Nefertiti2]

No, They're obviously two completely different things. If you start from the premise that nuclear weapons exist, are dangerous, but confer you with substantial power, and are on balance bad, then it's perfectly consistent to say that if you already have nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't just give them up, and that you should also limit who else develops them. I mean it's obvious that they are completely different things. The iranian theocracy potentially developing nuclear weapons is a solid argument in itself for not giving them up if you already have them.

Unilaterally giving up your nuclear weapons and leaving nato during the cold war, on the grounds that it would help spark a cycle of disarmament across the world is just solipsistic nonsense isn't it? I mean just how impressed were the US, USSR and China really going to be by the outstanding moral example set by Britain? It's a shocking case of underpants gnome logic, which in reality would be secondary in impact to the UK pulling out of Nato. It ignores that there are other people out there, who are not you, who have their own motivations and have their own imperial ambitions. It just doesn't make any sense on any level. It's one thing for people to be going on like this back in the day, but That in 2023 there are still people out there proposing that the UK leaves Nato is staggering.

Also fuck me lads. People are paying far too much attention to Nefertiti throwing a dead cat on the table by lashing out in his increasingly personal fashion. It's not racist to always be worried about the institutional imperialism of Russia, because as has been pointed out, I wasn't saying anything about russian people, who generally have fuck all say in the bullshit their govt gets up to, But the key thing to remember is that even on its weakest day, Russia is not a fucking country in the way that Ireland is a country, it's a fucking massive and brutal empire. Even when they didn't have an arse to their trousers in the mid nineties, they were slaughtering chechnyans. (and getting slaughtered in return) There's a reason that all those countries in eastern europe insisted on joining nato. People in the UK may not be familiar with their history with russia in its various forms, but the people of those countries are.

i think you began by claiming that Liz Truss' father was a Russian sympathiser because he supported CND. You also erroneously claimed that he was upper class -I guess because you like to exercise your prejudices about things you know nothing about.

You haven't incidentally commented on your error.

You love to chuck insults around,

When France left Nato was that "underpants gnome logic"?
Are Germany or the Netherlands stronger or weaker for not having nuclear weapons?

Why does Britain pretending to have an independent nuclear deterrent matter to anyone? It's expensive, it's dangerous, and it's unsuable

by the way it was the fact that Putin was slaughtering Chechnyans which made him so appealing to NATO or certainly the US and UK governments.


Putin is entirely the West's creation.

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

[anton pulisov]

It isn’t *paranoia* if they’re out to get you. The US attacks on Japan were primarily a warning to the USSR, and various US admins have looked at the feasibility of a first strike. Even JFK. Surrounded Russia with nukes then threw a shitfit when nukes were stationed in Cuba. They’ve also undermined Russian leaders and meddled indirectly even when Russia’s been minding her own business.
That’s why Putin is where he is and has considerable support even from Russians who think he’s an evil bastard.
The Russian fear and desire for peace was palpable the first time I visited. No-one slagged off “those Western/US bastards” to me. However, I’ve heard plenty of extreme anti-Russian rhetoric from Americans and Brits who think themselves reasonable people.
(Talking pre-Putin now.)

The USSR though, and the Warsaw Pact in general, includes vast populations brutally repressed by rule from Moscow. It is a failure of education and lack of self-reflection that the Moscow establishment managed to so quickly play the victim card after the Cold War.

[beak]

I mean just how impressed were the US, USSR and China really going to be by the outstanding moral example set by Britain?

The idea that Britain's nuclear deterrent would have deterred anything at all during a Cold-War-Goes-Hot situation is absolutely laughable: the US having nuclear weapons and happily stationing them all over the continent precludes any real need for the UK to have its own, beyond allowing some people to further delude themselves that it is a major power.

Fucking them off would save billions that could be happily put towards the forthcoming demographic crisis that nobody has realistic plans to address.

[ad hoc]

The idea that Britain's nuclear deterrent would have deterred anything at all during a Cold-War-Goes-Hot situation is absolutely laughable: the US having nuclear weapons and happily stationing them all over the continent precludes any real need for the UK to have its own, beyond allowing some people to further delude themselves that it is a major power.

Fucking them off would save billions that could be happily put towards the forthcoming demographic crisis that nobody has realistic plans to address.

The board will only let me give this a "like" rather than the standing ovation it deserves

[Nefertiti2]

The USSR though, and the Warsaw Pact in general, includes vast populations brutally repressed by rule from Moscow. It is a failure of education and lack of self-reflection that the Moscow establishment managed to so quickly play the victim card after the Cold War.

Both of those things can be true. The Russian people were also devastated after NATO countries enabled- indeed encouraged the mass looting of assets by oligarchs which left millions of people destitute.

[Satchmo Distel]

The USSR's civilian casualties were so massive in WW2 that it's perfectly understandable that Russians will support any leader they think protects them from any risk of repetition. Conversely, this blank sheet of paper was used to justify brutal imperialism from 1945-89, which set a template for how future leaders would behave.

As for Ukraine, I think sadly that most Russians literally believe it belongs to them because they have been taught that for centuries since the cradle.

[MsD]

The idea that Britain's nuclear deterrent would have deterred anything at all during a Cold-War-Goes-Hot situation is absolutely laughable: the US having nuclear weapons and happily stationing them all over the continent precludes any real need for the UK to have its own, beyond allowing some people to further delude themselves that it is a major power.

Fucking them off would save billions that could be happily put towards the forthcoming demographic crisis that nobody has realistic plans to address.

Exactly.

[Satchmo Distel]

It goes back to why Attlee's Labour government shamefully adopted them in the first place: they knew that WW2 had bankrupted them and made them drop down the pecking order, way below USA, USSR, China and subsequently West Germany, so they had to do something that maintained the pretence they were still a player. Thatcher's motive for Trident was even more obvious: her domestic policies were fucked so she had to do some "look over here" foreign policy distraction, hence Falklands, Trident, which also had the benefit of enabling them to smear Labour and CND as Russian dupes or worse ("enemy within").

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

So, let me be sure I understand this. The UK having nuclear weapons is a good thing because it acts as a deterrent and protects their people against the expansionist and imperialist designs of foreign powers (in this argument formerly the USSR and now Russia). But other countries having them is bad because those people shouldn't be protected against the expansionist and imperialist designs of foreign powers. I'm wondering in what way Iranian people are different from British people, I mean aside from the obvious one.

Being in favour of non proliferation on the one hand, but not giving up the weapons that you already have, because you're worried about the intent of all the other countries who already have them, on the other hand is the rational and obvious position for a UK govt to hold. and it's the position of the UK govt that we are talking about here. The position of the govt of Iran is a matter for them. They can want nuclear weapons, but it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world not to want them to have them. I'm not sure that fairness really enters into it. If Iran gets the bomb. well it's only fair that saudi arabia gets it too.....

And while there's rather a lot of them still knocking around, there's really not as many nuclear weapons as there used to be. there's 20% as many of them as there was in 1985. The UK have gotten rid of half their stockpile, and the americans and russians are still getting rid of 5-10% of the ones they have every year. It's china, india and pakistan that are heading the wrong direction at the moment.

[ad hoc]

Being in favour of non proliferation on the one hand, but not giving up the weapons that you already have, because you're worried about the intent of all the other countries who already have them, on the other hand is the rational and obvious position for a UK govt to hold. and it's the position of the UK govt that we are talking about here. The position of the govt of Iran is a matter for them. They can want nuclear weapons, but it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world not to want them to have them. I'm not sure that fairness really enters into it. If Iran gets the bomb. well it's only fair that saudi arabia gets it too.....

I still don't see how a country deciding that they would like to have nuclear weapons is different in any meaningful way from a country deciding that they don't want to not have them.

Obviously I don't think it's a great idea for Iran to have them but I also don't think it's a great idea for anyone else to have them either. Either countries that don't have them or countries that already do.

[DCI Harry Batt]

I know it's easier just to hit "quote" and leave the whole bloody thing in there. But a bit of editing goes a long way.

[Sporting]

2222sw2

[Nefertiti2]

Being in favour of non proliferation on the one hand, but not giving up the weapons that you already have, because you're worried about the intent of all the other countries who already have them, on the other hand is the rational and obvious position for a UK govt to hold. and it's the position of the UK govt that we are talking about here. The position of the govt of Iran is a matter for them. They can want nuclear weapons, but it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world not to want them to have them. I'm not sure that fairness really enters into it. If Iran gets the bomb. well it's only fair that saudi arabia gets it too.....

And while there's rather a lot of them still knocking around, there's really not as many nuclear weapons as there used to be. there's 20% as many of them as there was in 1985. The UK have gotten rid of half their stockpile, and the americans and russians are still getting rid of 5-10% of the ones they have every year. It's china, india and pakistan that are heading the wrong direction at the moment.

And if Israel gets the bomb... What would happen then?

Given what we know about the effect of one 15 kiloton bomb in Hiroshima, the number of weapons is irrelevant. One one megaton bomb will cause enormous catastrophe -

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

The idea that Britain's nuclear deterrent would have deterred anything at all during a Cold-War-Goes-Hot situation is absolutely laughable: the US having nuclear weapons and happily stationing them all over the continent precludes any real need for the UK to have its own, beyond allowing some people to further delude themselves that it is a major power.

Fucking them off would save billions that could be happily put towards the forthcoming demographic crisis that nobody has realistic plans to address.

In 1985 the UK had enough nuclear weapons to incinerate the 500 biggest settlements in the soviet union. how's that for mutually assured destruction? You could still do 200 at a push.

Also, I don't know if you've noticed this, but one of the two american political parties has gone fully fascist, and is seemingly in love with Vladimir Putin. Just how much do you want to be depending on people that might just collapse Nato, the next time the US elects a Republican president? Europe has been making long-lead preparations for the US to pull out of nato since the invasion of Iraq. That day is coming. The other thing I'd ask is just how much do you think that the UK spends on nuclear weapons? because The total cost comes in at a bit under 0.2% of GDP, which is a rounding error in the UK budget.

[Etienne]

And if Israel gets the bomb... What would happen then?

Given what we know about the effect of one 15 kiloton bomb in Hiroshima, the number of weapons is irrelevant. One one megaton bomb will cause enormous catastrophe -

Israel already has the bomb.

[Nefertiti2]

Israel already has the bomb.

i know, and hasn't signed any treaties

[Nefertiti2]

In 1985 the UK had enough nuclear weapons to incinerate the 500 biggest settlements in the soviet union. how's that for mutually assured destruction? You could still do 200 at a push.

Also, I don't know if you've noticed this, but one of the two american political parties has gone fully fascist, and is seemingly in love with Vladimir Putin. Just how much do you want to be depending on people that might just collapse Nato, the next time the US elects a Republican president? Europe has been making long-lead preparations for the US to pull out of nato since the invasion of Iraq. That day is coming. The other thing I'd ask is just how much do you think that the UK spends on nuclear weapons? because The total cost comes in at a bit under 0.2% of GDP, which is a rounding error in the UK budget.

so explain why you have such a hard on for mass murder