Trump doubles down on nuke comment: "let it be an arms race" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 05:43:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Trump doubles down on nuke comment: "let it be an arms race" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Trump doubles down on nuke comment: "let it be an arms race"  (Read 1118 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« on: December 23, 2016, 10:28:28 AM »

If he actually got into an arms race with Russia, I'd consider this a good thing, since Russia can't sustain an arms race. I'm good with deploying one of the more effective strategies in the Cold War.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2016, 11:09:45 AM »

If he actually got into an arms race with Russia, I'd consider this a good thing, since Russia can't sustain an arms race. I'm good with deploying one of the more effective strategies in the Cold War.

What a waste of time, human energy and money, not to mention all the collateral damage that would ensue. Sheesh.

It helped to win the first Cold War. Reagan managed to deploy enough and get the Russians to the table to negotiate with an arms race in the early 1980s. Of course, Reagan also stretched the Russians with entanglements in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, among other places. Reagan understood the Russians have one major Achilles' heel: a weak and fragile economy that can barely sustain an overextended national security state.

I see no problem in replicating that strategy and forcing the Russians to be strategically overextended. Of course, Trump won't do it but it should be done.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2016, 09:11:08 PM »

If he actually got into an arms race with Russia, I'd consider this a good thing, since Russia can't sustain an arms race. I'm good with deploying one of the more effective strategies in the Cold War.

What a waste of time, human energy and money, not to mention all the collateral damage that would ensue. Sheesh.

It helped to win the first Cold War. Reagan managed to deploy enough and get the Russians to the table to negotiate with an arms race in the early 1980s. Of course, Reagan also stretched the Russians with entanglements in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, among other places. Reagan understood the Russians have one major Achilles' heel: a weak and fragile economy that can barely sustain an overextended national security state.

I see no problem in replicating that strategy and forcing the Russians to be strategically overextended. Of course, Trump won't do it but it should be done.

And what was the result of the USSR collapse? The war on terror. A very heavy price.

We didn't know about that. Also, it wasn't inevitable that the mujahedeen would become terrorists in 1988.

Either way Reagan was right to arm the mujahedeen to bleed the Evil Empire. You worry about the enemies you have, not the ones you'll have.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 10 queries.