Replies

Russia has the most nuclear weapons on earth. Unlike the USA that has not made a modern warhead in decades they have been manufacturing new and better warheads continuously since we walked away from the SALT treaties. Our nuclear scientists are all retirees or dead from old age. Russia has a younger new batch of scientists and technicians actively making new weapons.

How much deeper you ask. Russia can and probably will send some of those boffins to Iran so they skip over gen1 weapons and go directly to miniaturized thermonuclear warheads or they could just secretly let them have a couple to tear apart and reverse engineer that’s how much deeper. The idiot neocons keep pushing Russia farther away from the West so their cash laundering welfare were makes them richer. Russia is never giving up on its new citizens in the majority Russian former parts of Ukraine. Neocons need to accept that fact move on and let the western part of the most corrupt nation on earth negotiate a peace before nukes start flying on their home turf.

Your post is thoughtful and I understand what you mean.
Based on your personal logical belief your reasoning holds up.

But for the sake of this conversation let me point out a few things that I have a strong belief for as well.

I know that the word “Neocon” is often used in discussions these days. But that word is being understood in different ways depending on who we’re talking to...

Example:
When we attacked Afghanistan, that move was based on common sense and our God given right to self-defense. Afghanistan protected Bin Laden after his massive terrorist attack on America. That was not a Neocon move, we rightfully responded - that’s all.

However, once our objectives were met in Afghanistan we decided to stay there forever, trying to civilize that country according to our western standards...
Even though the idea appears to be sain, the cost to make that happen was not worth it.
Thus, that war started on sain grounds but ended based on failed new objectives. Call those new objectives as “Neocon” if you like.

Also, when we liberated Kuwait from Iraq’s illegal invasion and annexation of that country, that was not based on neoconservative philosophy, in the beginning. We just couldn’t let Saddam Hussein take control of a big part of the world’s oil production - it would have been very bad for America’s, the West’s, and many other nations economies. Also, it would have been bad to rationalize Iraq’s attack on a sovereign nation. Letting that happen would give a green light to other tyrants around the world to just start invading their neighbors as well. World chaos = very bad for America’s economy. The SECOND Iraq war was a mistake though. (if we had truly finished the first Iraq war there would never have been a second unnecessary Iraq war though... let’s not forget that). The second Iraq war, or should we say “PART 2 of the first one” can be considered as a neocon one. Because we went beyond our initial objectives and tried to forge that country into a friendly modern Western-like nation... that was the mistake. Those countries will remain civilized forever. They don’t have the will.

Russia’s annexation of its small neighbor Ukraine is just as mad as Saddam’s annexation of Kuwait. No difference.
That’s why so many countries are opposing Russia right now. The level of illegality and thievery in this Russian attack against Ukraine seems to be more like pure terrorism rather than a war. Actually Russia has proven that that’s the case!

Indeed, they attacked Ukraine WITHOUT any war-declaration (that alone makes it a terrorist act) and without any kind of ultimatum of any kind. Thus the Kremlin decided to not call it a war... but a special operation instead. Its terrorism.

Ukraine’s capital Kiev was founded by the Vikings.
Ukraine is considered by many as being a “white-Christian stronghold”. That’s why I’m surprised the Democrats are still supporting that country.
It should be an all our Conservative / Republican support normally, based on our common Christian values.

Like with the UK, Europe, Canada, Taiwan, Australia etc... America has signed countless of accords with Ukraine.
You can see the long list of all what we have signed with Ukraine dating back +30 years till today. It proves beyond any doubt that Ukraine and America are true allies, with mutual responsibilities and duties towards each other.
That’s why we simply can’t let Ukraine be swallowed up by Russia’s unlawful and terrorist behaviour.

Law and Order. That’s the only thing that separates civilization from chaos.

America and the West are combining their efforts to contain the IRAN-Russia-North Korea Alliance’s dreadful actions against our allies Israel and Ukraine. That’s what allies do. Yes, there are costs doing this.
But the costs would be way higher if let gangsters roam free all over our towns and cities, and/or let Islamic-NeoSoviet-Commie forces massacre our allies and let them threaten our western nations with nuclear attack every week (as Russia is doing).

Law and order must be respected among allies.

GenXPolymath: "Russia has the most nuclear weapons on earth.
Unlike the USA that has not made a modern warhead in decades they have been manufacturing new and better warheads continuously since we walked away from the SALT treaties.
Our nuclear scientists are all retirees or dead from old age.
Russia has a younger new batch of scientists and technicians actively making new weapons."

I'd say all of that kind of talk is pure speculation, and the reality is more likely this:

While US operational nukes are well maintained & upgraded, and so entirely effective,
Russian nukes are subject to the same culture of corruption which destroys so much else of Russia's military and economy, and so are very likely highly degraded.

What it might take to restore Russia's nukes to full capability is anyone's guess, but it's not insignificant and may or may not be in progress today.

If, as you claim here, Russians are "actively making new weapons", meaning nukes, that implies its Old Soviet nukes have now degraded to the point they cannot be restored, which would mean that Russia's effective nukes today are far less than the many thousands they historically claimed.

GenXPolymath: "Russia can and probably will send some of those boffins to Iran so they skip over gen1 weapons and go directly to miniaturized thermonuclear warheads or they could just secretly let them have a couple to tear apart and reverse engineer that’s how much deeper."

So, first, I note your word "boffins", which is strictly British, not American English.
I also see that you are brand new to Free Republic, so welcome here, we love our British allies and friends, no matter how bad things got between us over 200 years ago... 😉

Now, as for how much aid and abetting Russians provide Iran, I can't even imagine.
Regardless, considering how loudly Russians claim Ukrainians are anti-Semitic NAZIS, it would be ironic beyond any measure if Russians were themselves providing Iran with weapons of mass destruction to exterminate Jews in Israel!

GenXPolymath: "The idiot neocons keep pushing Russia farther away from the West so their cash laundering welfare were makes them richer."

All that kind of talk is fact-free Russian propaganda nonsense, which serious people should not accept, much less repeat.

GenXPolymath: "Russia is never giving up on its new citizens in the majority Russian former parts of Ukraine."

Obviously, Vlad the Invader will not give up anything without a fight, any more than Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great or Stalin the Oppressor would have.

So the real issue is whether Ukrainians can put up enough of a fight to wrestle away some or all of its territories Russians seized beginning in 2014?
So far, the answer is, "not so much" but clearly Ukrainians themselves are not willing to cry: "dyadya Vladimir" ("Uncle" Vladimir).

GenXPolymath: "Neocons need to accept that fact move on and let the western part of the most corrupt nation on earth negotiate a peace before nukes start flying on their home turf."

First, "nukes flying" is a threat neither Russians nor anyone else should be making, period.
Second, from its beginnings, Russia was and remains amongst the world's most corrupt countries, as measured by it's Corruption Perceptions Index.
And, in its beginnings, Ukraine was just as corrupt as its "Mother Russia", but has worked hard to eliminate the fact and perceptions of corruption, to the point where Ukraine is today approaching levels of non-corruption acceptable in, for example, the European Union.
Third, on "neo-cons":
So, I "get" that anti-Americans love to throw around that word "neocons" as if it's like a Christian cross to Dracula and will force any conservative or Republican to back down from whatever they were defending.
But the fact is that a US "neocon" refers to someone very specific -- a former Democrat who rejected the Left's pacifism and anti-American counterculture and so became a conservative Republican over national security issues.
Now, as it turns out, the four most famous former Democrats who became Republicans were:
1. 1870s Pres. Ulysses Grant
2. 1950s Pres. Dwight Eisenhower
3. 1980s Pres. Ronald Reagan
4. 2010s Pres. Donald Trump
Other noted life-long conservative Republicans who also supported US international commitments included:
1. 1930s Isolationist "Mr. Republican" Ohio Sen. Robert Taft
2. 1960s "Mr. Conservative" Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater
3. 1990s Conservative Revolution leader Speaker Newt Gingrich
None of these Republicans were labeled "neo-cons" and yet all were notably strong in their defense of American interests at home and abroad.
So, conservative Republicans, even former Democrats, who support a strong national defense, and global responsibilities are not "neo-cons", they are just conservatives or moderates.
Of course, isolationists, pacifists, non-interventionists & anti-militarists can be anything politically -- from the most economically & socially conservative Republicans to the most leftist progressive counterculture Democrats.
So the fact of their pacifism or isolationism, etc., tells us nothing about their other political views.
Bottom line: Republican US Presidents Grant, Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump, plus Senators Taft, Goldwater & Speaker Gingrich, are/were not "neo-cons", they were/are conservatives or, if you prefer, moderate Republicans who all intended to Make America Great and Put Americans First.

Economist Democracy Index, shades of blue=democratic (right):

Corruption Perceptions Index, shades of green=less corrupt (left):