There’s still a Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. They’ve broadened their definition of “Doomsday” to include other possible catastrophes. The last “move” was in 2015:
The 2016 comment referred back to the 2015 statement. Let’s see how well the new “political leadership” does.
What worries me is that I fear Trump will make rash decisions. Clinton was going to be ballsy, but she would be likely to carefully calculate the risks, whereas Trump is more likely to just roll the dice.
Wars are started by electing idiots and incompetents who don’t understand the consequences of their actions. Sometimes, they’re started by electing unhinged demagogues who start them deliberately.
The fallacy in the OP is in grossly misjudging which of the candidates meets all of those criteria.
You do realise that you are the agressor, in this scenario, right?
She was “going to be ballsy” by poking a bear with a stick. That’s just stupid where I come from.
ETA: and if this election has shown anything, it’s that Clinton isn’t nearly as good at “carefully calculating” as she and her supporters think she is.
I don’t think it’s relevant. War is about who is strongest, and we’re stronger. That’s the law that Russia is following in Syria.
Anyone who wants to start a situation that has even a 0.5% chance of US and Russian forces exchanging fire needs to be locked up in an insane asylum.
Mrs Clinton was hawkish, not crazy. One of her advisors would have been Mr Clinton, who as President handled Russia with deftness. He did not humiliate Russia, he provided generous assistance. He however pushed forward with US interests such as the expansion of NATO. As a hedge, he kept significant units and formations in Europe, a corps plus worth of troops.
It was W ("I can see Putin’s sou"l) who began reducing US footprint in Europe and then Obama came (“reset with Russia”) and turned it into Task Force Smith on the Elbe.
I don’t think Hillary would have gone to war with Russia.
[QUOTE=adaher]
I don’t think it’s relevant. War is about who is strongest, and we’re stronger. That’s the law that Russia is following in Syria
[/QUOTE]
No you are not. US forces in Europe; 1x Armoured Cavalry Regiment and 1x Airbourne Brigade.
No matter they fight like tigers, or run away like screaming girls, the US at present has no real way to prevent Russian assault into Europe, sans use of nukes.
The Russians have fleets of submarines, missile cruisers, long range aviation, and oh a metric shitton of nukes.
Then that means Russia can do whatever they want and we back down. Good thing we didn’t waste our time with an intelligent Commander in Chief, any idiot President can retreat.
No it means that a sober assessment is made as to whether or not the possible consequences are worth the gain. What gain does the US make in Syria, even if Assad survives, under the protection of the VKS?
Right, risk WWIII for people who despise the West anyway. That sounds like a really sensible policy. And count on it, if the US started downing his jets Putin would retaliate and the world would find itself on the brink just as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. (And Putin is not Khrushchev.)
The US should always pick its battles wisely. Obama saw that. Clinton doesn’t.
Meh, Hilarys statements were just “declaratory policy” to look hawkish.
So she was lying again? Public policy vs private position?
No, they can’t invade a NATO ally, they can’t do a lot of things. But us trying to set up a no-fly-zone over Syria is like me walking into my neighbors backyard BBQ uninvited and telling everyone in attendance to get out and go home.
No you say youll react a certain way in order to modify others behaviour.
Foreign Policy 101
Weren’t there people complaining that Obama was making America look weak by not being aggressive enough? I seem to recall that coming up once or twice. Is there a flipflop in play, in order to criticize Clinton45 for possibly having that supposedly lacking aggression?
I thought it didn’t matter that your president was a liar? You did elect a barefaced one after all.
Yeah, I heard a similar argument from one of my friends in the army, and while I can understand that from his perspective, sharpening tensions with Russia is a bad move, I’m left wondering what the alternative is. Just roll over and let them do whatever they want? Let them control the world stage and take what they want, lest we be the aggressors? Right now, Russia is exacerbating a major humanitarian catastrophe. We’re just supposed to do nothing, because stepping in might cause a war? How far do we roll over?
Trump is not a rational diplomat on this issue. He’s a patsy who has given every indication he will just roll over and let Putin do what he wants. And meanwhile, he’s also made it clear that his response to taunting could very well be an act of war, that he wants to go back into Iraq in a way that will definitely piss off the locals (as well as literally everyone else who doesn’t support colonialism), and is a complete loose cannon on most issues.
Nice bullet we dodged there.
Worse than purposely killing the family members of “terrorists”?
As I said, the alternative is to pick your battles wisely. This is not the battle to risk confrontation with Russia over. That in no way implies you give them carte blanche elsewhere. Syria is a mess. A Russo-American conflict in the skies above it will not help it one little bit. Hillary, as her record shows, is totally oblivious to the havoc that ill-chosen intervention can bring.
A major catastrophe that the US created and let fester for 4 years.
Now that Russia has stepped in, protecting an ally, upon invitation of the legitimate government, suddenly you feel challenged ???