Nukes for hamburger meat....

[exhelodrvr]

Flash,
"That is supposed to be a joke, right?"

Re-read what I wrote. I said that they would individually take advantage of American weakness, not that they would work together.

"Russia of the 50's? "
Again, re-read what I wrote. They are acting like the USSR of the 50's. I didn't say that they were as strong relatively as in the 50's.

Yes, behavioral change in exchange for giving them something they want. A number of possibilities come to mind.
Sanctions vs Iran, for instance.
Or not threatening the former Warsaw Pact nations over the missile defense shield.
Or not playing games holding Europe hostage with natural gas.
Withdrawing from Georgia.

 

[Bevo16]

Well, it seems that the Prez is enjoying his trip to the G-8 summit.

Gotta admit, I would have looked too.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Well, it seems that the Prez is enjoying his trip to the G-8 summit.
Gotta admit, I would have looked too.

Hey, it's not his fault. The teleprompter said "Eyes right"

 

[Jynx]

I think that China and Russia individually taking advantage of a weaker United States, or a United States which acts weak, is much more likely.

While I agree with you that we can use this force imbalance as quite a hardball negotiating tactic, I have to disagree with you on this.

Russia is currently experiencing massive Chinese immigration issues north from China into Siberia. Why is Russia not happy about this? Because that part of Siberia happens to have the potential to be the most resource laden, untapped deposits left in the world. Because Russia is very dependent upon natural gas and oil exports for a successful economy, this is a crucial threat to any development economically Russia has planned.

Never forget, even when Russia and China were defacto allies in the cold war, There was still a massive pi$$ing contest between Moscow and Beijing for who was really supreme. The two countries do not like each other, and I can not see them acting in concert against the US for a sustained amount of time. Even their SCO has yet to have teeth, even if it's promises were huge.

I think that we SHOULD however be playing HardBall with Russia because it seems to me that that is how they perceive the rules of negotiation to be. They respect strength, and demanding a high price for reductions can get us cooperation on Iran, gas Exportation, or any other issue du jour.

 

[nugget61]

I don't pretend to understand all the politics that go on with this, but strategically if we drop our numbers won't we drop the lest "effective" nukes, making our average killing power higher? So in effect there are fewer nukes around the world, but only the best of the best nukes survive?

 

[exhelodrvr]

While I agree with you that we can use this force imbalance as quite a hardball negotiating tactic, I have to disagree with you on this.

Russia is currently experiencing massive Chinese immigration issues north from China into Siberia. Why is Russia not happy about this? Because that part of Siberia happens to have the potential to be the most resource laden, untapped deposits left in the world. Because Russia is very dependent upon natural gas and oil exports for a successful economy, this is a crucial threat to any development economically Russia has planned.

Never forget, even when Russia and China were defacto allies in the cold war, There was still a massive pi$$ing contest between Moscow and Beijing for who was really supreme. The two countries do not like each other, and I can not see them acting in concert against the US for a sustained amount of time. Even their SCO has yet to have teeth, even if it's promises were huge.

I think that we SHOULD however be playing HardBall with Russia because it seems to me that that is how they perceive the rules of negotiation to be. They respect strength, and demanding a high price for reductions can get us cooperation on Iran, gas Exportation, or any other issue du jour.

I don't think they will "act in concert." They both have plenty to gain individually relative to the United States. They will each take advantage of American weakness/perceived American weakness/unwillingness for America to act, regardless of what the other does.

 

[Bevo16]

Anyone else think that BHO might be clearing off some couch space when he gets home?

 

[HAL Pilot]

Anyone else think that BHO might be clearing off some couch space when he gets home?

At least in this case, the ex-wife doesn't get the house....

 

[insanebikerboy]

At least in this case, the ex-wife doesn't get the house....

If he uses MB's lawyer, the ex-wife probably would.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Very good column on this topic:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/10/plumage_-_but_at_a_price_97381.html

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Anyone else think that BHO might be clearing off some couch space when he gets home?

I find Sarkozy's face in both those photos to be quite humorous.

 

[DanMa1156]

I find Sarkozy's face in both those photos to be quite humorous.

Yeah he's definitely got a "I'd tap that" look on his face.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Well, it seems that the Prez is enjoying his trip to the G-8 summit.

Gotta admit, I would have looked too.

I saw this photo on another forum and discovered that the girl is a 17 year-old Brazilian.

 

[Bevo16]

I find Sarkozy's face in both those photos to be quite humorous.

Yeah he's definitely got a "I'd tap that" look on his face.

Yea, it's funny as hell. His wife is a super model who is not very modest. Do an image search on "Sarkozy's wife" if you are bored. Just don't do it at work, the results are not NMCI friendly.

17 or not, that is a hot piece of tail... legal in Texas and Brazil.

Sarkozy might have a better perm than her though.

 

[Flash]

Yes, behavioral change in exchange for giving them something they want. A number of possibilities come to mind.
Sanctions vs Iran, for instance.
Or not threatening the former Warsaw Pact nations over the missile defense shield.
Or not playing games holding Europe hostage with natural gas.
Withdrawing from Georgia.

Very good column on this topic:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/10/plumage_-_but_at_a_price_97381.html

Actually that is much less focused on the START treaty than it is a general criticism of the President's foreign policy in general when it comes to Russia. As I have already pointed out, strategic arms agreements rarely deal with anything else than the arms themselves, there is very little 'linkage' to other issues. Why? Because there are are so many issues that could be brought up and discussed that nothing would ever get done, there would just be endless negotiations. Georgia has nothing to do with strategic arms, and nothing we do is going to modify their behavior with that issue. The only thing adding the Georgian issue, or any other contentious issue for that matter, to the negotiations would do is prevent an agreement from being signed, nothing else. It has not been done before, by Reagan, Bush or Nixon, why start now? I think it has more to do with the party the President is a member of than anything else.

Krauthammer is also fixated, as many conservatives are, on missile defense. He is flat wrong by saying that we can reliably shoot down an ICBM, and may not be correct that Russia cannot. One big reason, we rely on the extremely difficult 'hit-to-kill' method while the Russians rely on ABM's tipped with nuke warheads. The Russians don't have to be accurate when trying to shoot down ICBM's, just get in the right neighborhood. We have to be 100% accurate every time, which we are not. I am not one who believes that missile defense is an impossible task, just prohibitively expensive to create an effective and reliable system against ICBM's (not using nukes).