|
Hambilderberglar posted:But what is this confidence based on? I agree with the statement that shock therapy was not beneficial to Russia, or any of the other countries it was applied to. However the only alternative you've proposed is EU membership for Russia, which I don't see as a palatable idea given the political realities of the time. Let's put things into perspective here, though: how realistic was it for NATO to say "Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO"? Even if that didn't include a timetable or whatever, it offered an assurance. It would have been nice for the EU to even make that gesture. Nobody's talking about letting them in immediately, no questions asked, no reforms undertaken. Obviously it was going to be a long row to hoe before they could be allowed in. But offering the assurance would have made a huge difference in how Russia perceived the West. quote:You've basically listed the reasons why EU membership was never, ever, ever going to be on the table then *or* now. I'm not seeing how that follows, though. Keeping Russia a peaceful, economically and militarily cooperative country was such an important objective - it's kind of incredible to me that so few Western leaders recognized this. What risks of gradual Russian integration into the EU could possibly have outweighed the risks our governments courted in driving the Russian public into the arms of nationalists? A Buttery Pastry: I do appreciate you posting all of that and crunching all those numbers - it was a really good post. But keep in mind, what you're talking about would only play a part if Russia were allowed to become a member immediately, without any prerequisites. What I'm talking about is promising a road to membership with concrete commitments. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Mar 14, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Majorian posted:how realistic was it for NATO to say "Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO"? 0, because this never happened. The strongest was "they may possibly join in the future if they fix up x, y and z".
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:0, because this never happened. The strongest was "they may possibly join in the future if they fix up x, y and z". The Bucharest Summit would like to have a word with you: quote:The resolution adopted at the 2008 Bucharest summit of the alliance said that Georgia and Ukraine “will join NATO” and “MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership” (nato.int, April 3, 2008). e: You had this to say about the probability of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world in the future: Nintendo Kid posted:they have probabilities about as large as justified torture and a successful land war in asia Not actually the case: quote:About fifteen years after Hellman became convinced of impending destruction, he began punching numbers to calculate the probability of such a catastrophe based on events focused around the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. According to Hellman’s numbers, the risk of a person not living out his or her natural life because of nuclear war is at least 10 percent. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
The "will" in that was coupled with a known assertion that they'd still take many many years and could choose to not do so at any time. Only the stupidest person would interpret that as it happening soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The "will" in that was coupled with a known assertion that they'd still take many many years and could choose to not do so at any time. That's an odd reading of language - "will" suggests that the "could choose to not do so at any time" was not implicit. In fact, "will" suggests that the opposite was implicit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's an odd reading of language - "will" suggests that the "could choose to not do so at any time" was not implicit. In fact, "will" suggests that the opposite was implicit. It does not, unless you're literally so stupid to assume one sentence was an entire speech, and furthermore to be unfamiliar with the organization's multi decade history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It does not, unless you're literally so stupid to assume one sentence was an entire speech, and furthermore to be unfamiliar with the organization's multi decade history. Come on, fishmech, just admit you were wrong. Also, I did edit in those probabilities for a nuclear attack a couple posts up. You ought to read them, you'd find it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Come on, fishmech, just admit you were wrong. Also, I did edit in those probabilities for a nuclear attack a couple posts up. You ought to read them, you'd find it interesting. I wasn't, and those probabilities are absurdly overestimated. You can go and find people who swear evolution isn't true too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I wasn't, and those probabilities are absurdly overestimated. You can go and find people who swear evolution isn't true too. You're one of the people who swear evolution isn't true in this analogy, because you don't have any expertise in nuclear nonproliferation. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're one of the people who swear evolution isn't true in this analogy, because you don't have any expertise in nuclear nonproliferation. You sure as hell don't, because you're citing things that anyone reasonable can see to be alarmist garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You sure as hell don't I actually quite literally have a Masters in it. You said in the chat thread that the chance of a nuclear strike is around that of a torture session being justified. I'd be interested in seeing your data and methodology. e: quote:The data is that no major country is actually putting more than a token effort into preventing it. This indicates that the consensus is that obsessing about it is dumb as hell. Cooperative Threat Reduction is just a token effort? Tell me more. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I actually quite literally have a Masters in it. The fact that torture is almost never justified, and no nuclear strikes have taken place in nearly 70 years. It's pretty simple, child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Let's put things into perspective here, though: how realistic was it for NATO to say "Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO"? Even if that didn't include a timetable or whatever, it offered an assurance. It would have been nice for the EU to even make that gesture. Nobody's talking about letting them in immediately, no questions asked, no reforms undertaken. Obviously it was going to be a long row to hoe before they could be allowed in. But offering the assurance would have made a huge difference in how Russia perceived the West. Giving that assurance would have political implications in the rest of the EU member countries. The EU doesn't enjoy the popular support to be making deeply unpopular promises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The fact that torture is almost never justified, and no nuclear strikes have taken place in nearly 70 years. It's pretty simple, child. LOL, first of all, don't call me child. (e: especially when your argument amounts to you plugging your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you") Secondly, the reason why no nuclear strikes have taken place in nearly 70 years is largely because nuclear security was a lot tighter during the Cold War. Anosmoman posted:Giving that assurance would have political implications in the rest of the EU member countries. The EU doesn't enjoy the popular support to be making deeply unpopular promises. Well, wait a minute though. It looks to me like they did precisely that with their relatively recent austerity measures. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:LOL, first of all, don't call me child. What about the nearly 30 years since the Cold War, child?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What about the nearly 30 years since the Cold War, child? We've made concerted efforts to counter proliferation. They've worked so far, for the most part. Without them, you end up with problems like the AQ Khan network. e: You going to post the data backing up your claim about the probability of a nuclear attack, by the way? Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We've made concerted efforts to counter proliferation. They've worked so far, for the most part. Without them, you end up with problems like the AQ Khan network. Not really. It's all down to the fact that even broke rear end countries don't tend to want to lose control of their nukes and random terrorist groups rarely have event he oppurtunity to steal one, let alone build their own. And even if they do they have next to practical ways to deliver said nuke. That, and dirty bombs are essentially as real a threat as red mercury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Not really. Yes, really, actually. quote:It's all down to the fact that even broke rear end countries don't tend to want to lose control of their nukes That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen fairly frequently. quote:That, and dirty bombs are essentially as real a threat as red mercury. I'd like to see the data on this too, so that I know you're not just making things up. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'd like to see the data on this too, so that I know you're not just making things up. You'll find there's no data on them, because the only ones ever made have been tests of whether it'd be worthwhile during the cold war (when people realized that the radiation dose likely was minimal, and you might as well just use a normal conventional bomb). Nothing on there is stolen bombs? In fact it appears to mostly be stolen fuel rods and medical radiation sources. That wouldn't melt steel beams let alone fission.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You'll find there's no data on them Aaaah, so you're making stuff up then while handwaving away facts. Got it. quote:Nothing on there is stolen bombs? In fact it appears to mostly be stolen fuel rods and medical radiation sources. That wouldn't melt steel beams let alone fission. Stealing fissile material is a pretty important step in non-state actors being able to construct a nuclear weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Aaaah, so you're making stuff up then while handwaving away facts. Got it. That's the same thing you're doing when you claim a nuclear attack on any country who isn't India or Pakistan is a realistic possibility. It's also 100% of the time so far led to non-state-actors being utterly incapable of building their own successful nuclear weapons. Hell even state actors have floundered at it while being straight up given the materials (see: North Korea).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's the same thing you're doing when you claim a nuclear attack on any country who isn't India or Pakistan is a realistic possibility. Not really, since I've actually backed up my argument with data and you haven't. quote:It's also 100% of the time so far led to non-state-actors being utterly incapable of building their own successful nuclear weapons. The evidence suggests that this is in large part due to efforts like CTR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Let's put things into perspective here, though: how realistic was it for NATO to say "Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO"? Even if that didn't include a timetable or whatever, it offered an assurance. It would have been nice for the EU to even make that gesture. Nobody's talking about letting them in immediately, no questions asked, no reforms undertaken. Obviously it was going to be a long row to hoe before they could be allowed in. But offering the assurance would have made a huge difference in how Russia perceived the West. Did you just use the example of Georgia and Ukraine being invited into NATO, something that we now know was unrealistic because it didn't happen, as an example for the feasibility of Russia joining the EU? How is this an argument in your favour? Unless you seem to think that making empty gestures to Russians is an end in itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not really, since I've actually backed up my argument with data and you haven't. You have backed it up with lovely data that is not taken seriously in country level planning. Actually it suggests it's because making an atomic bomb is simply quite hard to do, due to physics. It's also a dangerous thing to do if you aren't up on your safety procedures, and it's also extremely hard to make them small without experience. Now some morons go on about how "oh but you could sneak it onto a container ship", but these days those port facilities tend to be located in piles of nothing but port facilities and standing cargo, rather than population centers. And since you can't airburst that, your effectiveness is even more limited. To say nothing about how North Korea, for example, struggled through multiple failed attempts before they got their first barely above a fizzle bomb. You need assloads of material to be able to handle that. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A Buttery Pastry: I do appreciate you posting all of that and crunching all those numbers - it was a really good post. But keep in mind, what you're talking about would only play a part if Russia were allowed to become a member immediately, without any prerequisites. What I'm talking about is promising a road to membership with concrete commitments. That's ignoring that letting a Russia like this join the EU would to some degree be handing over the reigns of Europe to it, or at the very least, that would be how it would be perceived in most of Europe. And Russian politicians aren't the only ones sensitive to that kind of thinking among the voters. Maybe it would have been a good thing for Russo-European relations, but politically it is and was a non-starter. Majorian posted:Well, wait a minute though. It looks to me like they did precisely that with their relatively recent austerity measures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Did you just use the example of Georgia and Ukraine being invited into NATO, something that we now know was unrealistic because it didn't happen, as an example for the feasibility of Russia joining the EU? How is this an argument in your favour? Unless you seem to think that making empty gestures to Russians is an end in itself. My intent with that comparison was to point out that international organizations are capable of making concrete commitments. Something exactly like the Georgia-Ukraine promise would obviously have been a mistake, since it may have been something that we couldn't pony up on, and I misspoke in making that analogy. The point I was trying to make was that a more concrete commitment than the lukewarm ones we made would probably have made relations with Russia much better in the longrun. Look, I'll admit that I don't know what would have been the best way to integrate Russia into the wider European economic and political community. I'm no expert on economics or economic communities. Shocking, I know. But I don't buy that we couldn't have done a better job than we did. In all honesty, as far as all the options that were on the table in the 90's were concerned, I think we hardly could have done worse than we actually did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You have backed it up with lovely data that is not taken seriously in country level planning. The IAEA's list of incidents of nuclear smuggling is not taken seriously in country-level planning? Tell me more, forums poster fishmech! (You need to start backing up your claims. Otherwise they lack credibility) quote:Actually it suggests it's because making an atomic bomb is simply quite hard to do, due to physics. How does the evidence suggest that it's not largely due to CTR efforts and other counterproliferation agreements? quote:It's also a dangerous thing to do if you aren't up on your safety procedures, and it's also extremely hard to make them small without experience. Now some morons go on about how "oh but you could sneak it onto a container ship", but these days those port facilities tend to be located in piles of nothing but port facilities and standing cargo, rather than population centers. The port of Long Beach/Los Angeles would like to have a word with you. (e: also New York, Houston, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc) Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The IAEA's list of incidents of nuclear smuggling is not taken seriously in country-level planning? Tell me more, forums poster fishmech! The incidents themselves are not "taken seriously" no. You guard your own nuclear installations regardless of how many attempts happen or don't happen! Because the mere building of an atomic bomb is inherently hard, and delivering it is even harder. Even if nothing was done besides not letting people walk up and steal anything, you're not going to get any private party nuclear weapons happening. That's a good way away from most of the population of the metro area, child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The incidents themselves are not "taken seriously" no. Back up your claims please. quote:That's a good way away from most of the population of the metro area, child. Long Beach is a pretty major population center actually, but you keep plugging those ears and yelling "lalalala." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Back up your claims please. Here you go child:    These are some reasonable terrorist group container bombs in the port. We might get a whole 90 deaths!! Incidentally if you bumped it up to the strength of a common US cruise missile warhead, somehow stolen and smuggled into a a container in the harbor, you only get 13,000 deaths. And that's with basically a highly advanced weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
This is assuming that it's detonated on the ship, which is a huge assumption, and even if this is how things went exactly, it would still cause widespread panic and take a huge toll on California's health care system. The point of terrorism is to affect the psychology of a country, not necessarily to rack up the highest death toll. Now just admit you were wrong to say that people who think nuclear terrorism is a concern are stupid, fishmech, because you know you were. e: Or, if you don't want to and just want to keep retrenching, let's have a look at numbers that people who aren't forums poster fishmech have put together. This table calculates the loss of life or property, the financial cost, and includes comments on the estimate: quote:Table 2 Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is assuming that it's detonated on the ship, which is a huge assumption, and even if this is how things went exactly, it would still cause widespread panic and take a huge toll on California's health care system. The point of terrorism is to affect the psychology of a country, not necessarily to rack up the highest death toll. I am assuming it's detonated on a ship because that is the most likely scenario within the set of ridiculously unlikely scenarios of "terrorists have constructed a working nuclear weapon and smuggled it onto a ship". Though if it was detonated while sitting shoreside in stacks of others, it might cause even less damage due to the relative force blocking of all that piled material. Also you can just as easily "AFFECT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF A COUNTRY" by blowing up a container full of conventional explosive, you might even do more damage than a slapdash terrorist nuke would! Hell, remember what happened when 5 planes were stolen? You just don't seem to be smart enough to grasp that nuclear terrorism isn't worth worrying about because "conventional" terrorism is so much easier to do and is still rare. poo poo, go ahead and drop a few hundred pounds of plastic explosive on the side of a major bridge in a major metro and detonate it, you could completely ruin transportation for years while incepting hella fear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Isn't it a little weird to call Russians emigrating to neighboring countries "colonialism"? I mean sure Russia orchestrates the policy and seeks to control those countries, but it sets up a really ugly and personal dynamic. (Yes, I realize the dynamic is centuries old.) Can't you have Russian nationals without them being a fifth column? Can't you deplore Russia's policies and be strongly nationalist without encouraging hatred towards individuals? Sorry about digging an old post up, but to clarify: Soviet Union didn't have freedom of movement, obviously not outside its borders, but also within. Everybody had to have a registered place of residence (propiska) and you couldn't just as well pack your bags and move somewhere without one. There was some emigration for cultural reasons, but the main reason for the Russian population in former Soviet states today was quite deliberate russification precisely for the purpose of breaking the sense of national unity of the locals for more efficient subjugation and control. E.g. how did the border town of Narva, formerly >60% Estonian town become 95% Russian? Answer: the Soviet air force levelled it in WW2, and when it was rebuilt, almost none of the original residents were allowed back in. Whole towns and city districts were built and and industries were set up only for Russian immigrants, with few locals allowed. Particularly Brezhnev had the approach that, quote, "wherever the boot of a Russian soldier has touched is Russia". Rather than abstract hatred, losing the whole land and culture to Russians the way of indigenous Americans was a serious, real, practical concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
I'm guessing you won't read what I edited into the post above, or will ignore it, so I'll repost it: Let's have a look at numbers that people who aren't forums poster fishmech have put together. This table calculates the loss of life or property, the financial cost, and includes comments on the estimate: quote:Table 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm guessing you won't read what I edited into the post above, or will ignore it, so I'll repost it: This means nothing because 2 planes in NYC caused a ton more damage, and didn't require decades of tricky research and clandestine materials acquisition to acheive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This means nothing because 2 planes in NYC caused a ton more damage LOL, no. 3,000 lives lost is not "a ton more damage" than 60,000 lives. Nor would the psychological impact upon the US probably be less than the impact of 9/11. e: face it, fishmech, you made a sweeping claim when you didn't know what you were talking about. It happens. But don't go around insulting people just because you were wrong. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is assuming that it's detonated on the ship, which is a huge assumption, and even if this is how things went exactly, it would still cause widespread panic and take a huge toll on California's health care system. The point of terrorism is to affect the psychology of a country, not necessarily to rack up the highest death toll. Those numbers seem really pessimistic. Are they assuming everyone will murder each other in the panic to get that 60,000 dead number? edit: no it says the 60,000 die instantly from the blast. I can only assume 60,000 people live on the dock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Those numbers seem really pessimistic. Are they assuming everyone will murder each other in the panic to get that 60,000 dead number? Here's a breakdown of their estimates: quote:A very large area of the Los Angeles basin—the immediate blast and radiation zone in
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, wait a minute though. It looks to me like they did precisely that with their relatively recent austerity measures. And how do you feel this is working out for the EU?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Those numbers seem really pessimistic. Are they assuming everyone will murder each other in the panic to get that 60,000 dead number? It's an estimate based on the bomb being moved inland a good deal without anything noticing, and it assumes that the terrorists can successfully build and deploy a large enough bomb. Majorian posted:LOL, no. 3,000 lives lost is not "a ton more damage" than 60,000 lives. Nor would the psychological impact upon the US probably be less than the impact of 9/11. Sorry, child, you're wrong. 9/11 has cost us over $5 trillion in wars alone, let alone all the people we've killed over it. That matters more than some SoCal fucks who wouldn't even die in any reasonable scenario. And business as usual below Chambers St still hasn't returned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:55
|
|