Sulaco

MAD is not a descriptive theory of what happens after a first strike is launched. It is a theory of how a first strike is prevented. It is also a strategy based on that theory. In short every party Y has to make it clear to every party X that if Party X launches a first strike than Party Y will retaliate. As long as Party X believes Party Y a nuclear exchange should not happen - assuming that party X is a rational player. Thus not further behoves party Y to: 1. not hide its nuclear capability but make it clear i has sufficient capability to destroy X. 2. make sure that X believes Y will stick to its word. 3. make sure that retaliatory ccapibility is nto overshadowed by X's counter measures 4. Arguably make sure not to make leaps in technology over X, or to hide such leaps because oif X comes to believe it is falling behind it may atttempt to launch a first strike (this last is a controversial proposition) In short MAD relies on pretty honest information exchange about capabilities and a strict intent displayed at all times that retaliation will be carried out. If Party X is an irrational player MAD fails and you enter an escalation spiral. You fail in grasping that MAD is not a descriptor but a prescriptor.

Again you beat me to it.

An apropriate analysis. I would think offensive use would be generally strategic and thus deep behind enemy lines. The equivalent of mass bombing raids on industrial centers or transportation hubs. Tactical use of nukes makes far more sense in terms of defensive action.

I wonder if that has always been your principled position or if this is a recent coneversion to the Word of McNamara.

That is not an answer to my question. Perhaps there is no real answer. Whether the Vietnam conflict constituted a civil war (and I tend to believe it falls outside of the definition - I guess I disagree with McNamare - but then he foguht the whole thing badly as well so what the heck) is not really relevant to any judgments we are discussing here. Why then is that "fact" constantly trotted out?

Now this - this is thread hijacking writ large. Let's look back a few pages - hmmm... Ooops, I guess I wasn't the only one to spot this little tidbit of hypocrisy.

Why this constant invocation of "civil war". It seems to be used to cure perceived ills and indict the US in the Vietnam conflict. The assumption that go into this continued invocation in all its forms re Vietnam should be examined. Is intervention in civil war per se wrong? Each and every post SU conflict in the former Yugoslavia fit the mold of civil war. So did Somalia and Rwanda. Yet we wanted intervention in Rwanda - it did not materialize. Does the fact that its a civil war justify greater barbarism on the aprt of the participants? Does it especially explain it? What are the rules of foreign intervention in civil war? Should no one intervene? What if one side gets foreign help? Must the other side remain unsupported? I guess what I am asking is - in what context is "oh it was a civil war" really relevant.

And I notice you do not mention the de-"kulakization" of North Vietnam prior to "the fall of resistance" in the Republic of South Vietnam But hey - whetevah. Your assertion that "the south would have done the same" is unsupportable.

He was the worst spokesperson for an administration in my short political memory. Also, as I understand that statement it is merely a retrospective accusation.

Mongolia? Here I am making the distinction between an overthrow of a ruling class and extended reign of terror. I think that such a distinction is fair. Of course my suggestion is based on ignorance. Ie. - I never heard of what might be called a reign of terror in Mongolia. But as I sit here I cannot think of another place that can even be suggested.

And that places him in the kook camp.

It is, IMHO, one of the most effective and efficient agencies in the Federal Government. Thus one of the least liked. They are good at going after the cashola.

The IRS is not a system. it is an agency tasked with collection of certain taxes as well as creation of regulations.

That's not my theory but it's also very plausible given this crew here.

UNderfunded UNless the US kicks in its gigantic share. Most UN funding comes from these here, the United States.

Perhaps we are having a semantic disagreement. Xenophobia is not a synonym for isolationism. Definitionally xenophobes look both inward and outward. Aliens are to be eliminated from one's homeland but they are also to be fear abroad. Now the xenophobe is presented with several ways of defending. build walls or attack, subjugate and control. I think both paths are open and the thing about Russians is they have consistently chosen the latter.

In and of itself that is hardly a virtue.

And that too is strange. The libertarian wing of the Republican party has much more voice within the party than Canadian libertarians have with the Cons. The result is that libertarians have quite a bit of influence over US politics. I never saw the same to be true in Canada. I doubt these Canuckies would be likely to countance the possibility of voting for a Ron Paul in their own elections. My diagnosis - the support is cynical and is purely based around hopes to see US foreign policy retrreat inwards. The next questions are: why the desire to see US influence wane and what hope for what happens in the subsequent vaccum. I have my theory.

I disagree. Theoretically one can be imperialist and a xenophobe. The gaining of rmpire through paranoia is a phenomenon that is not alien to history. Some historians assign Rome's expansion, especially initially, as security drive. Rulling over the "barbaric hordes" does not imply that one must be welcoming of them at home. That's the Russians for you.

Well - since I do not believe the Czar first faced re-election, and upon winning that faced term limits I imagine you're not talking about one or the other of your favorite whipping boys. So tell us - to whom are you analogizing?

Well, I appreciate the compliment/indictment. It's the forum. A higher class of posting quality here has caused me to re-read what I write and correct the glaring errors. I still miss some. You'll note that this is not true of the Fuhrer board.

I tend to think that I am. All though sometimes my satire can achieve an appropriate level of subtlety. All lawyers have a tendency to be heavy handed. Anyway - that obviously wasn't even directed at you - or at least I don't think so. Sheesh, everyone is a critic.

Oh I don't really think so. The Russians who could present political opposition are generally moving to the west. What you have left is your standard Russian, an imperialist xenophobe with a pessimist outlook on the future and human nature. A prime candidate to support whatever strongman offers at least stability. A bad cultural psyche of there ever was one. Call it Russian exceptionalism.

You're trying to blame Putin but as the article points out you're wrong. By increasing it's influence in East Europe and the former SU, by forcing those lesser Slavic, Georgian, Armenian, Turkmeni, Azeri, etc. etc. etc. people to accept deals with the US, Bush and the US are obviously goading the good people of Russia. The claver mornic George Bush and his gaggle of neo-con warmongers are obviously cynically playing on the xenophobia and imperialist "pan-slavicism" of the generally calm and rational Russian people in order to justify further money for the American industrial-military complex pig-dogs. Those lesser ethnic groups, of course, would otherwise properly kowtow to the Russian bear at all times - as they did historically. In fact the US is not merely goading Russia but also undermining historicity (the way things were) in its quest to satisfy their real god, the might dawllah. And - by encouraging nationalist awakenings in various cultures surrounding Russia, through its insidious tacit support, the US is obviously attacking Russian culture abroad. Once Russia is back in the driver seat it will have undo all that damage by years of renewed efforts at eliminating intellectuals in the various under-nations, new and more conprehensive assaults on foreign languages and god knows what else. It's going to be just like Stalin's Russia. Had the US not converted millions to its terrible ways Stalin would not have had to kill so much.

Ok - what does "fused" mean? Is it impossible for such fusion to take place today?