New report reveals a growing list of provocative clashes between Russia, NATO - Polidicks

[QUOTE]A SPYPLANE that nearly rammed a civilian airliner. A kidnapped intelligence agent. Combat jets playing chicken. The Cold War is back — and it’s getting icy. The last leader of the fallen Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, at the weekend warned that the world was on the “brink of a new Cold War”. He was wrong. According to a new report, it’s already here. WORDS EXCHANGED: What Abbott and Putin talked about The crisis in Ukraine has escalated tensions between Russia and the West to their highest level since the end of the Cold War and increased Russian air activity over Europe has rattled the nerves of NATO alliance members. More than 40 East-West military “incidents” have been recorded during the past eight months. They have been detailed in Dangerous Brinkmanship: Close Military Encounters Between Russia and the West in 2014, a report by London think-tank the European Leadership Network.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.news.com.au/world/new-report-reveals-a-growing-list-of-provocative-clashes-between-russia-nato/story-fndir2ev-1227119063461[/url] [url]http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/dangerous-brinkmanship-close-military-encounters-between-russia-and-the-west-in-2014_2101.html[/url]

Great, just what I wanted in my life time.

It's interesting this time though, because before it was really Red vs Blue, and geopolitics. But right now, it's literally just based on foreign policy and geopolitics. It could be easily sorted out through negotiations, but now it's more complicated by the stubbornness of both NATO members, and former Soviet bloc states.

[QUOTE=Binladen34;46460886]It's interesting this time though, because before it was really Red vs Blue, and geopolitics. But right now, it's literally just based on foreign policy and geopolitics. It could be easily sorted out through negotiations, but now it's more complicated by the stubbornness of both NATO members, and former Soviet bloc states.[/QUOTE] What is NATO being stubborn about? I see Russia standing behind death-camp dictators like Assad and embarking on 19th Century imperial land grabs in Ukraine. NATO's worst move has been what? Building a missile shield?

[QUOTE=Explosions;46460896]What is NATO being stubborn about?[/QUOTE] Well, pushing talks between all NATO members, Ukraine, and Russia. Russia only started pushing itself into Ukraine because of it's perceived threat of NATO invasion. It wants Ukraine as a buffer should that happen. NATO isn't interested in that, and neither is Russia really. It's a big mess. Sorta like how it was 40 years ago.

[QUOTE=Binladen34;46460908]Well, pushing talks between all NATO members, Ukraine, and Russia. Russia only started pushing itself into Ukraine because of it's perceived threat of NATO invasion. It wants Ukraine as a buffer should that happen. NATO isn't interested in that, and neither is Russia really. It's a big mess. Sorta like how it was 40 years ago.[/QUOTE] There was never a threat of NATO invasion. The Russian government never even entertained a scenario like that - it is in the realm of conspiracy theorists. They simply saw their strongman get run out of Kiev so they had to grab what they could before the new government made moves towards the EU. NATO never had and still has nothing to do with Ukraine. If I'm not mistaken, a NATO official has even explicitly said that Ukraine will not be invited.

[QUOTE=Reshy;46460794]Great, just what I wanted in my life time.[/QUOTE] Ya kiddin'? Cold war is basically the best thing that can happen to science. 1: Find an enemy you see as a real threat to your existence 2: Convince the public that the enemy is superior in one technological department 3: Have prominent lawmakers say we cannot afford a ____-gap 4: Science happens!

[QUOTE=Riller;46461070]Ya kiddin'? Cold war is basically the best thing that can happen to science. [/QUOTE] Yeah! We are the science once Russia blows us up with their prototype nuclear missiles that just came in! Oh... shit... wait-

Say reports come in that the Neosoviet navy has developed a better railgun, or even that they've made one suitable for ground use. It doesn't even have to be true, just a loose report suggesting it. Senator of California, the home-state of General Atomics, stands up in the senate and gives a rousing speech about how [I]we cannot afford a railgun gap, and any true patriotic, red-white-and-blue blooded American agrees that it is our number one priority![/I] So railgun-funding goes way up, but the current design reaches it's top limits, still not good enough. We need better superconductors. So we develop better superconducters. It works. It can launch a Volkswagen Beetle across the fuckin' pacific and still hit a fuckin' outhouse with a creaky door. However... It takes too much power. Fine for static and naval use, but how about those reported Neosoviet railgun-tanks? We better shrink it. We better fit it on a hull. It works. But only with external power. We need more battery power! Better develop better batteries, after all, we got a blank check for this. Two years later, the railgun-gap is chalked down to poor military intel, as always. But we have infinitely efficient superconductors laying around, batteries with a hundred times the life time of current ones, and a cannon that can, with slight modification, launch a satellite into space with no rocket. And then the CIA identifies what they believe to be reports on a new, more efficient kind of powersource. Do you, Americans, believe we can afford an electricity gap, when the reds are hammering on the door? 'cause I don't, America. I don't think we can afford it, and if you want to remain American by the end of this decade, you better think the same! [editline]11th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=TheAlkaline;46461130]Yeah! We are the science once Russia blows us up with their prototype nuclear missiles that just came in! Oh... shit... wait-[/QUOTE] Prototype nuclear missiles put a man on the moon, my friend.

[QUOTE=Riller;46461144] Prototype nuclear missiles put a man on the moon, my friend.[/QUOTE] [i]sort of[/i]. The Saturn V and N-1 had little to do with ICBM designs. It was their predecessors that put the first satelite(Sputnik was literally just taped to a first gen ICBM with no other modifications), first men, etc up there. We never stopped doing this, either, every time we retire an ICBM design the existing vehicles are sent to NASA and used to launch satellites. They don't scrap the launch vehicles.

[QUOTE=TestECull;46461898][i]sort of[/i]. The Saturn V and N-1 had little to do with ICBM designs. It was their predecessors that put the first satelite(Sputnik was literally just taped to a first gen ICBM with no other modifications), first men, etc up there. We never stopped doing this, either, every time we retire an ICBM design the existing vehicles are sent to NASA and used to launch satellites. They don't scrap the launch vehicles.[/QUOTE] NASA would hardly be a thing at all if it wasn't because we needed someone to help find better ways to murder a lot of Russians in a short timespan, though.

[QUOTE=Riller;46461932]NASA would hardly be a thing at all if it wasn't because we needed someone to help find better ways to murder a lot of Russians in a short timespan, though.[/QUOTE] The Gemini and Mercury programs did rely on ICBMs, sure. The Moon race wasn't necessarily one to find a way to vaporize commies, more a way to make America look stronger, look like the better country. Dick waving for sure but I doubt there were any plans to weaponize the Saturn V.

[QUOTE=TestECull;46462151]The Gemini and Mercury programs did rely on ICBMs, sure. The Moon race wasn't necessarily one to find a way to vaporize commies, more a way to make America look stronger, look like the better country. Dick waving for sure but I doubt there were any plans to weaponize the Saturn V.[/QUOTE] But the Saturn V was designed under the direction of Von Braun, the guy who built ballistic missiles for Germany during the war :v: Building on experience gained during the wartime development of these ballistic missiles.