Author: mandingo

Russia-China Missile Defence Shield! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-22 16:17:00 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-18 16:07
The US has no interest in nuking China or Russia because of factors wholly unrelated to political friction--chief being the fact that the US attaches a lot of taboo to "pushing the button".


I find that to be a very odd thing to say considering the fact the U.S. is the only country to ever actually use nukes. The reason the U.S. wouldn't use nukes is because it is capable, or at the very least thinks it's capable, of achieving its aims without them.

Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-18 16:25
It's very unlikely to come to Russia's aid besides, largely because a Russian win is a Chinese loss due to its much stronger ties with the US.


Are you saying China's stronger ties or Russia's? I would agree if you meant China.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-22 16:50:27 |Display all floors
Originally posted by yuan_zcen at 2008-8-20 10:40
Washington - The United States will consider providing former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with asylum if he asks, US State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Tuesday.

"We haven' ...



"If he chooses to take up residence somewhere in the MOON = OK la
What's on your mind now........ooooooooooooooo la la....Kind Regards

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-23 05:31:18 |Display all floors
Kodama,

That's nice, it was also the first time they were used, at the close of the most bloody war the world has ever seen and against an adversary where the only alternatives were seen by many as costing millions of lives. Seems like that's the time to push the button.

I think it's funny that you come here with your faux reasonableness but can't even be bothered with simple historical perspective or, hell, a visit to Wikipedia to make sure you have a clue.

Perhaps someone should nuke you; lord knows you try to push my buttons.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-23 06:13:54 |Display all floors
fact is China will allways sit on the fence , Russia will allways try and and stick it's chest out , only to pull it back in again when they realise their public opinion analysts have got it wrong again , America will allways try to undermine dictatorships and com-munist countries and will allways come to the aid of a capitalist seeking Autonomous region , these are facts of life get used to it .
There are no Ugly women , only those with low self esteem .

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2008-8-23 11:36:47 |Display all floors

Reply #6 icke83's post

Russia already has the IBM "Galosh" system stationed around MOscow and from my sources, I understand it's to be upgraded. Russia has had this sytem since the 60's I believe.

Some links;
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/a-35.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/4_gal_01.htm
http://www.missilethreat.com/mis ... 1/system_detail.asp

These are just some links, read em and weep because Russia had them waaaaay earlier than the US (doesn't really have them now even) and so, is the US not allowed to deploy these? I say no, if it's good for Russia, then it's good for the US and her allies too. "What's good must be universal"!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-23 11:44:45 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-23 05:31
Kodama,

That's nice, it was also the first time they were used, at the close of the most bloody war the world has ever seen and against an adversary where the only alternatives were seen by many as costing millions of lives. Seems like that's the time to push the button.


Again with your seemingly unrelenting support for American aggression. Did it occur to you that perhaps Japan could have surrendered without a nuclear bombing? Never mind that it wasn't the point. You're saying the U.S. has a "taboo" as though that is something unique to the U.S. when it is in fact the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. The point being the one country you claim has a "taboo" is the one country which has actually used them. No other country with nukes has used nukes. So why do you say the U.S. has a "taboo" on their use rather than it being "taboo" in general?

I think it's funny that you come here with your faux reasonableness but can't even be bothered with simple historical perspective or, hell, a visit to Wikipedia to make sure you have a clue.


I do have historical perspective, part of that perspective is noting the U.S. as being the only country to have used nuclear weapons. It's also knowing a bit about the policy of nuclear brinkmanship that dominated the Cold War. I also have a little present-day perspective in noting how the U.S. is positioning itself to be able to deliver nuclear weapons more effectively in a combat scenario and providing themselves with protection from potential retaliation.

I really don't think it's as "taboo" as you suggest. I think it was Rumsfield who said he believed the U.S. could win a nuclear war.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-23 12:08:39 |Display all floors
Kodama,

Firstly, it is difficult to call this American "aggression" since the Japanese did start the war. Secondly, I'm defending the decision as reasonable, not necessarily as moral. That's a debate for historical speculation. It is well enough known that after the war, when the information was fully available, the general public found the use of nuclear weapons to be a frightening possibility. After all, it was Lyndon Johnson who ran the "Just Another Weapon?" and "Daisy Girl" ads against known nuclear hawk Barry Goldwater and these helped Johnson secure the largest landslide victory in modern history. Experts agree that these two ads, which exploited the nuclear taboo for their message (otherwise they would work in Goldwater's favor or not register the amount of effect), were critical to Johnson's campaign. The existence of successful advertising which relies on a taboo is a good demonstration that the taboo exists.

You want to know, however, why I ascribe this to the US. In this case you are missing the pointt: "the US attaches a lot of taboo to 'pushing the button'". This is a description of US attitudes, it is not necessary for me to mention the attitudes of other states because they are simply not party. Indeed, if you bother to examine the context

"The US has no interest in nuking China or Russia because of factors wholly unrelated to political friction--chief being the fact that the US attaches a lot of taboo to 'pushing the button'. Nor could China or Russia succeed very easily in building a missile defense system. Evidence for this is pretty easy to come by: Russia has yet to build one in response, preferring to threaten forward deployment of nukes."


you will find that I am quite clearly describing why the US in particular is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against China or Russia. This does not require a discussion of Russian, Chinese or Singaporean attitudes for the same reason that my explanation of why I am not going to drive to work tomorrow does not require explications of the vehicular preferences of Mrs. Esther Sotherby, who lives in a nursing home in Cornwall and hasn't driven since her husband died in 1985.

In terms of your "historical perspective", you have about as much perspective as an 8th century manuscript illumination. The US was the first nation to use nuclear weapons, but that doesn't negate a taboo against them--already demonstrated--because the taboo could not exist until some party used nuclear weapons in the first place. It was cognizance of their actual, demonstrated effects that made nuclear weapons taboo. Before that they weren't even known to more than a small number of scientists and military personnel. These are not conditions in which a taboo would arise because it is not sufficiently public and not sufficiently organic as a group to develop them.

The fact is that people had been contemplating nuclear weapons and their potential since Leo Szilard had discussed nuclear chain reactions. It was only use of the weapons on a population that brought their potential into focus--remember, they had been dismissed in 1933 by none other than Rutherford--and made that potential sufficiently public for a taboo to develop.

I have established here three main points: (1) that the US possesses a strong taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, (2) that taboo is not negated but rather is enabled by it being the first to use them, (3) your so-called "historical perspective" is lacking in both nuance and depth of knowledge.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.