WAR Close ally calls on Vladimir Putin to ‘strike London first in WWIII’ on Russian media

Walrus

Veteran Member
I call BS as you do not go talking about this if you really have any intentions of doing something like this.
Doing that is like showing your cards in a card game and expecting to win.
Vlad the Inhaler often lets his hawkish underlings rant and rattle sabers, and he watches, gauges reactions and chimes in later with "an adult is in the room speaking so hush, children" tone.

(BTW, he lets his dovish underlings do the same thing but they don't get near as much press as they're talking of boring things like international finance exchanges, new trading systems, shipping of critical foodstuffs, BRICS, working with the ruble, etc. instead of exciting things like annihilating entire cities and civilizations)

Treat these kinds of rants as Shakespearean moments (full of sound & fury, signifying nothing) and catalogue them to determine if there's a consistent path or message. Then you might discern the reality behind the rants.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Yea, Robert S McNamara. You know what the middle initial stands for, his middle name.
Strange.

It's a surname in the Fayetteville NC area....

 

Walrus

Veteran Member
yes, well . . . the Russians weren't the ones that created the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction".
That was developed in 1962 as US Policy by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara.

McNamara had previously promoted a counterforce or “no cities” strategy that targeted Soviet military units and installations. Under this paradigm, it was believed that a nuclear conflict of limited scope could be fought and won without it escalating to a full nuclear exchange. This strategy relied on both superpowers abiding by such a limitation, however, and neither believed that the other would do so.

In 1965 McNamara instead proposed a countervalue doctrine that expressly targeted Soviet cities. McNamara stated that this doctrine of “assured destruction” could be achieved with as few as 400 high-yield nuclear weapons targeting Soviet population centres; these would be “sufficient to destroy over one-third of [the Soviet] population and one-half of [Soviet] industry.”

And "that" was rational.

So, 60 years later, the Russians claim it and now it is irrational.
It was irrational then, as well, but never mind ... Irrational now or not, it's not as if our dear leadership these days is anything but irrational. We can thusly expect more irrational, emotionally-driven actions from them.

It's kind of ironic to see you - one of the most unflappable, rational posters on this forum - accused of being irrational. I see you've already considered likewise and moved on. History is rarely kind to those who only pick snippets of it to justify writing in CAPS to make a point.
 

raven

TB Fanatic
It's a surname in the Fayetteville NC area....

Yep. My genealogy is full of those. Cloughs, Sheltons, Brooks, Andersons, Starrs. Overtons
 

Sentinel

Veteran Member
Sounds like Western Europe better get off their backsides and starting paying for their own defense. If I remember correctly, Russia only has 145 million, while there are about 600 million in Western Europe. And Russia's economy is about the size of Italy, but they need the U.S. to defend them?
 
Top