1

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 22:09:24 »

If I may summarize it. You're on a road to extinction.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/07/ten-grim-lessons-the-world-has-learned-from-a-decade-of-war-in-syria

2

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 18:11:44 »

USA:s new doctrine of 'limited nuclear warfare' described, although not in the detail I would prefer. It's a new way of making war bearable without coffins coming home. F.ex perfect for staging a war in Iran. Doing it right there shouldn't be much left to see afterwards either. So some few coffins needed there too.  Very economical.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1701286

Rubble and maybe some bones.

3

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 17:06:05 »

Yeah, I know, that was a evil joke. But considering how our world looks today I felt it needed to be added.

4

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 17:00:53 »

Disclaimer


All of this formulated under the assumption that you are sane of mind, able to follow a logic.

5

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 16:09:16 »

Providing we all had a real democracy. But we don't, instead we have hierarchies, elites and 'leaders'. And our game.

6

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 16:07:35 »

That's money that we could have done something better with.

7

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 16:06:49 »

" The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a major report in October 2017 that estimates the nuclear weapons spending plans President Donald Trump inherited from his predecessor will cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars between fiscal years 2017 and 2046. This amounts to about 6 percent of all spending on national defense anticipated for that period, as of President Barack Obama’s final budget request to Congress in February 2016. When the effects of inflation are included, the 30-year cost would approach $1.7 trillion, according to a projection by the Arms Control Association. "

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization

Russia.

https://sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2018/how-much-does-russia-spend-nuclear-weapons

China?  SIPRI doesn't even seem to want to guess there

but we have this. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-nuclear-weapons/

8

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:18:14 »

So no, your chances of a good outcome are constantly shrinking here. And I blame it on the game you play. Your game of inequality, based on a infinite earth.

9

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:16:04 »

Norway, USA, Russia, Canada, China, India, Africa and the list goes on.

10

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:15:05 »

So you will find country's everywhere, actively working on our extinction. The question becoming how it will be reached.

11

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:12:04 »

It locks you in. It has its own logic and you become bound by it.

12

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:10:38 »

The same with the banks, loaning out billions to gas and pipelines, coal and oil.

Real politik, and I don't care what you say there. This is the way the game works.

13

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:07:43 »

And it takes us increasingly closer to that war. There is a best of date stamp on all weapons, after a while you need to modernize again, if you can afford it.

14

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:05:02 »

That's also 'real politik', and will probably play a role here. It's not about global warming. It's about economy.

15

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:03:47 »

So all in all?

The wrong direction, and if those country's by some mysterious cause change their mind, a geopolitical crisis for Russia.

16

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 15:01:46 »

Now why would Mr Putin prefer President Biden before Mr Trump?

"  As I wrote in September, “In Russia, the oil and gas sector contributes almost 40% of national revenue and more than half of the exports. In Saudi Arabia, the oil and gas sector contributes about half of the country’s GDP and 70% of its exports. The national oil company, Saudi Aramco, also contributes around 60% of the government revenue, and the government employs almost 70% of all working Saudis.”

Russia’s economy is not strong at the moment. The poverty rate is high, with many Russians unable to afford necessities, and the government unable to understand the problem. The World Bank projects economic growth from this already low level to reach only between 1.6 and 1.8 percent in 2020 and 2021. Meanwhile, Putin is already facing a question of how to hold onto power after 2024 when his term ends and term limits prevent  him from continuing as president. He needs revenue and economic growth for Russia.  "

And if President Biden succeed in his ambitions, Russia will gain on it, presuming that other countries still look at oil, and specifically gas as a 'transition fuel'.    Germany f.ex.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2020/02/21/putin-cant-be-rooting-for-trump-why-russia-needs-a-democrat-win/

17

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 14:55:34 »

It's a new state we reached, of distrust. Trust is hard to build, just as peace.

18

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 14:51:32 »

But we shouldn't forget that both nations use the same negotiation tactics. A smile and a hammer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/24/no-way-out-why-nuclear-modernization-is-necessary-in-six-slides/

https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/

It's a nuclear arms race starting all over. and now we need to add China to it. Having the ability to retaliate after a 'first strike'

19

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 14:45:48 »

So what happens now?

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/biden-and-putin-agree-to-extend-nuclear-treaty-20210127-p56xap

It's called 'real politik'. It might even work, sometimes.

20

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 14:42:11 »

So did he break the treaty? Well yes, I'm pretty sure he did. " But whatever Putin just said, his Chief of the General Staff General Valery Gerasimov recently publicly conceded that Russia had broken the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987.

Specifically, Gerasimov said, "We have formed command bodies and special units to plan the use of long-range precision-guided munitions and prepare flight assignments for all types of cruise missiles. — This has enabled us to set up full-scale units of vehicles capable of delivering precision-guided missiles to targets located up to 4,000 kilometers away."

And " Clearly, in Europe Russia dwarfs Iran as a clear and present danger and its past record shows just how little faith it puts in its own treaties and international agreements. Finally, Russia’s policies along with China’s, not to mention North Korean and Iranian programs, underscore the need for maintaining a credible and modernized nuclear deterrent. Of course, this won’t end the debate as to what that means in practice for each leg of the triad. But the idea that nuclear weapons have no appreciable strategic role in modern warfare other than to threaten other nuclear weapons appears to have been invalidated by both North Korea and Russia, if not China and Iran.

It is noteworthy that both Beijing and Moscow are not only building multiple new nuclear weapons and that Russia is extending older ones. They also are undertaking simultaneous large-scale conventional modernization. NATO, if accepts Russia’s war on the European continent is an ever-present reality and therefore must be a similar reality for it, can clearly afford to modernize both conventional and nuclear deterrents.

These revelations also call into question the idea of better relations with Russia. Undoubtedly, in principle better relations would benefit everyone. But what is the basis for negotiating new agreements with Russia if it violates all the old ones and acts like it is at war with the West? What then is the actual, not rhetorical, basis for improving bilateral relations when there can be no trust between the two states? "

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/360100-putin-is-a-very-real-nuclear-threat