The enigmatic sitting duck

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

The political fiasco into which the world is veering has a strange , vaguely reminiscent familiarity.The silent war, before WWII, was a hush hush period of a falsely projected beneficence, before the onslaught of real trouble.

Obama is accused of playing a very naive political football, against the real dynamics of of a Pentagon realized, Holbrook era’s ‘deal through strength’ ideology.

In Syria, where naïveté dictates a new found chorus of belief in the appear ent (to whom) formulae to envisage a collapse and removal of Assad, caused by Russia’s imminent realization, that they are about to be sucked into a Vietnam type civil war quagmire.

Such musings, according to some pundits, smell of a more then transparent effort to vindicate the long standing Obama set policy of retreat from the Middle East. It is more a matter of vanity than anything else, on the part of the chief executive, since he has no political basis, other then routing the Republican Party toward the primary, since he has only a year left in office.

That said, what should he do? The only credible thing for him to do, would be, to support the other factions the Sunnies, and thereby increase pressure on political division and consequent instability. Giving reign to supposed Russian intentions and realizations to buttress a failing foreign policy, is little comfort to those, who are really serious about the dynamics of present day middle eastern US policy.

What is, really going on, in this regard?

2

Obama should back down a little, as he is doing, to try and prevent a war. So long as he stands his ground on key issues, not much will be lost. We are in a very different position to 1939.

All drawn out wars, in the end, come down to having sufficient resources (Trixie, as a fellow avid fan of strategy games, will probably be able to confirm this :smiley: ). Russia, despite its maneuvering, is poor as shit - it could win a fight against half of Ukraine, but not against the USA. I know it has nukes, but the reality of nukes is that they aren’t as devastating a force as people often make out. The 1,600 active nukes Russia has could take a good number of US cities and bases out, but not even all of them, and certainly wouldn’t ‘wipe out humanity’. And after Russia fired the nukes, it would be almost instantly overidden by both a barrage of returned nuclear fire and an invasion force it has no hope of competing with. Russia knows this.

China is a much bigger threat, but still, a long way behind the US in terms of resources. Also, a lot of its current stick waving is based on trying to hide the fact that its economy could be on the brink of a major collapse and their army is in very bad shape.

In WW1 and WW2 you had several opposing powers with near equal levels of resources - and that is what caused such a long and bloody conflict. In todays world, at least for now, the USA retains strategic control of enough of the worlds resources to prevent such a war.

3

Obama isn’t in charge. What ‘he’ does is irrelevant.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tF-5Xg_byk[/youtube]

4

Brevel monkey,

Are You sure 1,600 nuclear missiles would not do irreparable damage, and destroy most of the other

parts of the world , at least as far as long term
effects on the environment is concerned? Even one

nuke destroying New York would devastate the world , because it is, at the moment the international
hub,followed by London.

In addition , some of their nukes have megaton
capacity, and the Hiroshima little boy is merely a

dwarf compared to it. Japan’s unconditional
surrender was caused by that and the Nagasaki explosion. They are only the earliest nukes.

Cyberwarfare, would also become a major challenge, with unexpected consequences, for which the world is
ill prepared.

If that was not enough, the west has no knowledge of
the top secret weapons at Russia’s disposal.
Remember this is the country which sent the Sputnik
into orbit, surprising everyone. As far as them being
poor, that again is questionable, they have the

largest community of super wealth in the world. Their oil reserves are formidable, diamonds, gold,
coal, iron ore, and a very organized infrastructure,

communications. Their educational system is very well advanced, and their society well coheres and functional. The underestimation of Russia would be a
mistake, remembering that both Napoleon, and Hitler
lost their war objectives there.

But what I was leading to, was the fragility of the
Middle East, it’s pron ness for internal strife and
division, and the seemingly paradoxical Russian ‘soul’
Which is able to come up fighting, after they are knocked out.

They are very aesthetically advanced, their music is incomparable, well, comparable with that of

Germany, and their true potential post the disintegration of the Soviet Union has yet to be even partly utilized. The incursion into Ukraine , besides
being a strategic coup, shows the

strength of their military and political affront. They are a force to be reckoned with, they are a force to be reckoned with, while in Ms. Thatcher’s words they are a country that could be dealt with.

But in terms of their involvement in the Middle East, their purpose in Syria, may be appraised as paralleling those , which the West has come to likewise involve in. If such near common purpose can not be set up, then the quagmire, which has developed there, may in deed, evolve into an end of the world scenario.

If Obama truly does what he is told, then, he is merely a puppet, but relying on advisors, with specialties corresponding to international politics , is quite different.

I think the world is in a stage of development , where it is far too early, whether some of the political skeletons underneath have actually come out of their respective closets.

In Eastern Europe, there is a sense that current politicians consist of the old Communist guard, masquerading as new world proponents, some of them just biding their time, until they can assume another reincarnation. A lot depends on how internationalism works out, and things can change very quickly in the arena. The US, is truly a leading power today, but there is a sense that it too, has shed it’s aura of invincibility. Especially among the vast and conflicting tribal populations of the Middle East.

5

The environmental damage would be mutual, and delayed. I’m not saying I’m rubbing my hands waiting for them to launch all of these nukes. What I’m saying is that there is a common misconception that if all the active nuclear warheads were launched, it would be the instant end of civilisation. In fact, the blast radius of moderns nukes big but not huge. If Britain launched it’s entire active nuclear aresnal at Moscow, for example, less than half of the population would be killed in the first 12 days. One megaton warheads are rare, most are now in the 100kt range, but if a 1 megaton were detonated, the lethal blast range would be around 3 miles - far more than at Hiroshima, but added up, clearly nowhere near enough to wipe out a whole country.

The smoke plumes would cause huge environmental damage over the following months and years. But in the meantime, probably 99% of humanity would survive - enough to ensure a major ground war would follow a retaliatory nuclear strike. Basically, there is no red button which could instantly destroy us all.

But that’s only, too, if the States hasn’t already secretly deployed a method of taking down ICBMs (I find it hard to imagine they haven’t yet developed such a system to counter a threat developed about 70 years ago). We know they have a small scale defense system up and running, my money says theres a much bigger and more effective one already deployed.

By definition, an under estimation is a mistake :slight_smile: . Russia’s economy is about the same size as Canada’s. Big, and modern, but not world-threatening, especially as the US and Europe are generally aligned, put together they are almost 20 times the size of the Russian economy.

Tribal is the ultimate word when it comes to the middle east. I find it hard to imagine that a culture which still crucifies political prisoners is ever likely to pose any threat to an advanced nation.

Russia’s purpose in Syria is quite apparent - prop up Assad. They will continue to bomb anti-government forces in Syria to this affect. This is pretty different to the purpose of the U.S. - which is to target IS. Even if we pretended to be allies because some of our targets are the same, it would fall down. Basically, the US doesn’t like Assad and Russia does, I can’t really see any resolution to this.

6

ALockheed-Martin’s LRDR, and a multi layered Aegis system is the only known works, which are estimated to be implemented in a few years, as far as an anti-misleading system goes. There is a penetrable window of vulnerability between now and then.

 The scenario, that Russia is holding its breath for changes of political posture, due to possible changes of administration in the US, is not to be casually dismissed. Remember how the Soviets buckled  under Regan's NDA?   There is method beneath MAD.
7

think of the superpowers in terms of playing chess,
a game lasting as long as both remain a superpower.
Now Obama has proven with his game with the GOP
in the house and senate, he is a grandmaster chess player.
When the history books are written, he will be regarded
as one of the best political presidents, we have ever had.
(short list by the way, FDR, Nixon, Lincoln, Clinton)
Obama plays the long game better than just about anybody.
Obama has played Putin more than once and I believe he is
currently playing Putin in the middle east. He is getting Putin to
commit to a very unpopular dictator in a very volatile area.
this is a recipe for disaster for Putin.
The way for a dictator or any leader to remain leader
is to have success and Putin has been far short in having success
in most area’s. He is stuck in a quagmire in the Ukraine and dam near stuck
in Syria. This won’t end well for Putin and my guess is he is swept out of
power quickly and within 2 years. the Russian economic house is clearly
not very stable with large income inequality and that is always very dangerous
for any country. (anyone here listening to the danger of income inequality)
The chaos in Russia will be bad and could have worldwide repercussions but
that depends on how the leadership change happens.

Kropotkin