• The US Military Probably Wont Do Anything About Ukraine
    53 replies, posted
[quote]American military commanders have a sizable amount of firepower at their disposal in Europe as the crisis deepens over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine — but Washington has no plans to use it. From Air Force warplanes in Great Britain to Army brigades in Germany to a Navy aircraft carrier strike group that happens to be on its way through the Mediterranean, tens of thousands of U.S. troops and ample high-tech weaponry are available for tasking. The risks associated with a showdown with Moscow, however, mean such orders probably will never come. [...] “We are focused on political and economic and diplomatic and economic options,” the official said. “We do have a wide range of options to include isolation, potential sanctions, relationships between Russia [and other countries]. … Our goal is to uphold the territorial integrity and government of Ukraine, not to have a military escalation. I don’t think we’re focused right now on some sort of military intervention. I don’t think that would be an effective way to deescalate the situation.” Administration officials say the U.S. can punish Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively enough without the threat of force. [...] There appeared to be very little discussion outside the administration about actually confronting the Russian troops that are said to have seized airports, government buildings and other important targets in the Crimea. Critics, both domestic and international, laid part of the blame for Russia’s incursion at Obama’s feet. The president’s willingness to accommodate Putin, they said, had made Putin confident enough to step out so boldly with what they described as an old-fashioned invasion. [...] “As the president has sought secret deals with Russia, abandoned portions of our missile defense system, reduced our nuclear weapons capabilities and significantly cut our military through his sequester, Russia, China, Iran and North Korea see a weak United States,” Turner said. “This is a very dangerous message to send to the world and especially to Russia, [which] seeks to regain lost territories from the former Soviet Union. When the United States is weak, freedom around the world suffers and we are witnessing this first hand today in the Ukraine.”[/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-military-action-104152.html[/url] [quote]At last, Washington has found a fight it does not want to have. [...] ... it might have been expected to touch off yet another battle between the White House and congressional Republicans. Instead, there has been a conspicuous absence of saber-rattling on both sides — an acknowledgment, perhaps, of the complexity of the situation in Eastern Europe, as well as the public’s overwhelming distaste for foreign entanglements. For Democrats and Republicans who spent much of the last century competing to be Moscow’s most credible antagonist, and much of the past decade fighting over which party killed terrorists more ruthlessly, there was no rush to the battle domestic stations over the weekend. [...] Several times during Obama’s presidency, events abroad have prompted Americans to consider whether their country should play the role of international policeman. In each case so far — in Libya and Syria, and in the ongoing war in Afghanistan — the public has answered in the negative. [B]“This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. ‘minding its own business’ in the nearly 50-year history of the measure,” Pew reported.[/B] [/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-the-dc-battle-that-wasnt-104162.html[/url]
It's the curse (benefit) of nuclear weapons and the huge threat we bring to each-other as nations; considering how immense our stockpiles of weapons has become. [editline]3rd March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=usaokay;44112260]That will change when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.[/QUOTE] this time it's KONY2012 attacking... California
Unless somthing really bad happens the US won't do anything. I'm not so sure about other European countries.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44112261]It's the curse of nuclear weapons and the huge threat we bring to each-other as nations; considering how immense our stockpiles of weapons has become. [/QUOTE] I think it would also be a thing like ww1. There are lots of sides with political alignments. You wouldn't just declare war on Russia. You would be declaring war/shattering relations with a host of other nations. And likely hood is all or most of the EU would get involved then get screwed over from Russia controlling half of their fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44112261]It's the curse of nuclear weapons and the huge threat we bring to each-other as nations; considering how immense our stockpiles of weapons has become. [/QUOTE] Dunno if not having perpetual wars on behalf of other countries is a "curse"
Well you can't blame them. Starting a war in the middle of Europe is not in anyone's best interests Especially if you're not even European
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44112321]Well you can't blame them. Starting a war in the middle of Europe is not in anyone's best interests Especially if you're not even European[/QUOTE] Except Russia apparently, since they aren't getting more opposition.
All those trillions into military spending, and it's absolutely useless when there's a real crisis.
The US is now just getting out of Afghanistan. They've had enough war for now.
[QUOTE=Reshy;44112329]All those trillions into military spending, and it's absolutely useless when there's a real crisis.[/QUOTE] Oh no, I wouldn't say that - just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those places were such a success!
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44112286]Dunno if not having perpetual wars on behalf of other countries is a "curse"[/QUOTE] Yeah, this. Nukes are scary but they can also stop conflict from breaking out. It's a double edged sword really.
Further: [quote]At last, Washington has found a fight it does not want to have. [...] ... it might have been expected to touch off yet another battle between the White House and congressional Republicans. Instead, there has been a conspicuous absence of saber-rattling on both sides — an acknowledgment, perhaps, of the complexity of the situation in Eastern Europe, as well as the public’s overwhelming distaste for foreign entanglements. For Democrats and Republicans who spent much of the last century competing to be Moscow’s most credible antagonist, and much of the past decade fighting over which party killed terrorists more ruthlessly, there was no rush to the battle domestic stations over the weekend. [...] Several times during Obama’s presidency, events abroad have prompted Americans to consider whether their country should play the role of international policeman. In each case so far — in Libya and Syria, and in the ongoing war in Afghanistan — the public has answered in the negative. “This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. ‘minding its own business’ in the nearly 50-year history of the measure,” Pew reported. [/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-the-dc-battle-that-wasnt-104162.html[/url]
I think the US is better off using political and financial persuasion on Russia and let Europe deal with the more practical arrangements.
Well of course USA isn't going to do anything. 1. They're war weary, a decade in the middle east will wear a public down. 2. We don't want to risk major war. 3. We don't want to be Nuked to death, especially me. :v:
[QUOTE=Reshy;44112329]All those trillions into military spending, and it's absolutely useless when there's a real crisis.[/QUOTE] It doesn't spend trillions to start the next world war.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44112286]Dunno if not having perpetual wars on behalf of other countries is a "curse"[/QUOTE]I don't know about you but it doesn't make it impossible for other countries to abuse nuclear weapons just because of the stigma against using them. They are good in the sense that they force away the hand of war; but they also allow for countries to use them as a form of fear-mongering. See Iran and NK
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;44112355]Well of course USA isn't going to do anything. 1. They're war weary, a decade in the middle east will wear a public down. 2. We don't want to risk major war. 3. We don't want to be Nuked to death, especially me. :v:[/QUOTE] Take off your tinfoil hat. Nukes aren't going to fly.
Comforting words to hear, especially that they're looking for deescalation rather than tit-for-tat opposition.
[QUOTE=Stopper;44112336]Oh no, I wouldn't say that - just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those places were such a success![/QUOTE] Those were sinkholes you threw money at.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44112357]I don't know about you but it doesn't make it impossible for other countries to abuse nuclear weapons just because of the stigma against using them. They are good in the sense that they force away the hand of war; but they also allow for countries to use them as a form of fear-mongering. See Iran and NK[/QUOTE] Yeah, don't see how that's relevant to this situation though
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44112376]Yeah, don't see how that's relevant to this situation though[/QUOTE] Edited my first post to add in the "(benefit)"; I saw what you meant
[QUOTE=Code3Response;44112363]Take off your tinfoil hat. Nukes aren't going to fly.[/QUOTE] They might if we get involved. Therefore, it's a reason why America especially doesn't want to touch the Ukraine.
Russia has way more to lose by attacking NATO than vice versa. If the US military were to get involved Russia would almost certainly back down, not that it every would have done anyway though.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;44112420]They might if we get involved. Therefore, it's a reason why America especially doesn't want to touch the Ukraine.[/QUOTE] Even if we got involved (which we won't) no one would start throwing nuclear weapons anyway. The repercussions would be too nasty for anyone to risk.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44112261]It's the curse (benefit) of nuclear weapons and the huge threat we bring to each-other as nations; considering how immense our stockpiles of weapons has become. [editline]3rd March 2014[/editline] this time it's KONY2012 attacking... California[/QUOTE] Nuclear weapon stockpiles are going down actually, with precise delivery systems like MIRVS you really don't need a lot of them.
I don't see why America should get involved as far as Russia doesn't attack any NATO country. Which it won't.
[QUOTE=FoneJack;44112438]Even if we got involved (which we won't) no one would start throwing nuclear weapons anyway. The repercussions would be too nasty for anyone to risk.[/QUOTE] Whether or not we do or don't, the risk is still there. [editline]3rd March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;44112528]I don't see why America should get involved as far as Russia doesn't attack any NATO country. Which it won't.[/QUOTE] We have the fancy military tech. That's my guess at least.
[QUOTE=The mouse;44112424]Russia has way more to lose by attacking NATO than vice versa. If the US military were to get involved Russia would almost certainly back down, not that it every would have done anyway though.[/QUOTE] Not quite buying this. Leaving aside nukes and naval warfare, US doesn't seem to have much capability to engage continental Russia. OTOH, if that were to happen, all of Russia would be up in arms, thrilled to fight the "fascist aggression" (strange how this phrase gets thrown around even in these days).
I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Crimea WANT to become a part of Russia?
[QUOTE=Telepethi;44112805]I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Crimea WANT to become a part of Russia?[/QUOTE] Maybe? But the worry is Russia using Crimea as a starting point for a conquering of Ukraine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.