[familyop]

"Do they know what the Russian force doctrine is? Is the Crimea worth a nuke on New York?"

The answer to the first question: to advance, huff, puff and gesture like southwestern Europeans while making threats, then retreat.

Answer to the second question: there will be no "nuke on New York," so the question was invalid. Russia might be capable of physically launching a few before seeing all of its ground positions destroyed, and anything that made it into the air would be destroyed before reaching us.

Much propaganda has been issued about weapons capabilities of Russia and the West. All that Russia can do in its new effort to conquer the world is to try to win enough hearts and minds in the West to try to affect western politics. Not surprisingly, they've seen more success with that in recently convincing some Baby Boomer and Gen-X Americans (spoiled rotten).

[Monorprise]

“Answer to the second question: there will be no “nuke on New York,” so the question was invalid. Russia might be capable of physically launching a few before seeing all of its ground positions destroyed, and anything that made it into the air would be destroyed before reaching us.”

That is nonsense, if Russia launched all its missiles at us, we would only be able to shoot down a few of them. The rest would hit somewhere in the ‘general’ vicinity of their targets.

As for Crimea, I have no problem with letting the Russians have it. Its not like it makes a difference to us. Until the 1950’s Crimea was part of Russia as it had been by that point for about 170 years.

Furthermore it actually means something in Eurasia that most of Crimea’s population is ethically Russian.

[bill1952]

and anything that made it into the air would be destroyed before reaching us.

That is so completely wrong its frightening. Study up on current nuclear doctrine and Rand studies