Help me out regarding Russian Conspiracy theory.

[SeaGal]

To begin with it is a conspiracy theory - and as we've learned through long association with our friends on the left, when they are the accusers it usually means they are looking in the mirror as they speak. That said...revenge can be a powerful motivator..

MOSCOW — Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused the United States of supporting street protests against last Sunday’s elections and blasted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for suggesting that the voting was rigged.
Putin accuses Clinton, U.S. of fomenting election protests

For an instance of collusion with the Russians that actually took place...

 

[Crixus]

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

Russia was a last ditch effort, much like counting the recount was in 2000. It's politics. Nothing more.

 

[rightwinger]

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

Chaos in the west.
A weakened NATO alliance
Weakened UN
Breakdown of western trade agreements
US in a state of confusion

All make Russia stronger on the global scene

 

[Picaro]

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

Chaos in the west.
A weakened NATO alliance
Weakened UN
Breakdown of western trade agreements
US in a state of confusion

All make Russia stronger on the global scene

Yes, the Obama-Hillary Legacy is indeed a disaster. We now have an American in office, and despite the heavy resistance from the racists and gangsters left over from that, it is going to be resolved to our benefit for a change.

 

[rightwinger]

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

Chaos in the west.
A weakened NATO alliance
Weakened UN
Breakdown of western trade agreements
US in a state of confusion

All make Russia stronger on the global scene

Yes, the Obama-Hillary Legacy is indeed a disaster. We now have an American in office, and despite the heavy resistance from the racists and gangsters left over from that, it is going to be resolved to our benefit for a change.

Nice try but alternative facts
Hillary Clinton spent years rebuilding the alliances destroyed by the disastrous Bush invasion of Iraq. The Great Obama was able to use our European allies to perform much of the heavy work in Egypt, Libya and Syria while we provided mostly intel and air support

Didn't take long for Crooked Donnie to destroy those alliances to the point where Europe now looks to Germany for leadership rather than putting their trust in Crooked Donnie

Putin is celebrating

 

[forkup]

How about undermin

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

How about undermining Democracy by choosing figures that would destabilize the target countries. Not only the US but it's also known that Russia supported Le Pen, Wilders and the Brexit vote. Ideologically speaking they all have one thing in common. The parties involved if successful weaken the stability of the country. Pro-Ukip Twitter account with 100,000 followers may be Russian disinformation campaign Marine Le Pen's links to Russia under US scrutiny
Leaving EU, Restoring Trade Ties With Russia to Be Priority for Netherlands

So Russia’s goal is global thermonuclear war. Because destabilizing the world increases the scenarios in which nuclear war is probable.

That one doesn’t seem to make any sense. The idea that the rising tide of nationalism somehow empowers Russia is also a stretch of fevered imagination. It increases tensions, especially between trade partners, and increases the chance of trade wars and outright breaks in diplomacy. One example, the EU and Russia seem to be united in opposing the decertification of the Iran nuke deal. Oddly enough Democrats seem similarly outraged by the move. So is Russia the good guys trying to maintain peace? Or are the Russians trying to sew disharmony and the Democrats are patsies?

If the goal was further tensions, then supporting the American decision would seem to be in Russian self interest.

Sorry, your theory does not stand up to even momentary scrutiny.

Really?
-First of destabilizing ideological opponents does not lead to thermonuclear war. Russian support for Cuba, S-Vietnam, Afghanistan, N-Korea and dozens of other countries led to war but not thermonuclear war. Neither did support for the IRA the Rote Armee Fraction and other terrorist organizations. The US interfered in many elections so did Russia.
Saying that destabilizing your opponents leads to thermonuclear war is objectively false.
- Secondly, it's also false that destabilizing your opponents doesn't help your country. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster for the EU, it weakens their trade position and the ability to extend their trade power. This makes it more likely that vulnerable nations like the Baltic States and Poland and others to try to come to some sort of accommodation with Russia. The same applies to weakening NATO, what electing Trump certainly did.
-Thirdly, even if in some cases the interests of adversarial nations come together how does that negate the adversarial nature of them?
- Fourthly, none of this is relevant. See nobody of note, not even the current administration is really denying that Russia meddled in the elections of countries. The fact that you question the validity of the motive doesn't change that. It's smoke and mirrors. I engaged the premise because I could quite easily answer it. So lets see if you have the balls of doing the same? I gave you four counterarguments please address them?

Sorry obviously I meant N-Vietnam

 

[jc456]

oil.

the only thing worth a damn that russia had in play was oil. pootey poot had a $500 BILLION dollar deal with Exxon Mobil but couldn't get it going with existing sanctions imposed. so he wined & dined trump when he was over there in 2013 for the miss universe pageant... & groomed him into becoming his puppet. sooooooooooooo.... guess who he made SOS?.... too bad putin didn't bank on congress solidifying those sanctions AND imposing even more. i think tillerson actually had an epiphany & realizes just how deranged trump has become & is a threat to this country & beyond.

That doesn’t make any sense either. Russia could make that money easily if the price of oil increased. That could be accomplished easily by screwing with Saudi Arabia and perhaps Kuwait. Funding either jihadi or nationalist terrorists in those states would increase the price of oil as Saudi supply was interrupted. It would be a lot easier, and cheaper, than screwing around with some fanciful plan to get the one candidate that was rated least likely by every expert. Too many things had to go just right for Trump to win.

It would be more probable than the long shot Trump win the Presidency. Russians are careful chess players. They don’t plan out the game where the only way to win is for you to make fifty mistakes.

Try again.

uh-huh. oil is becoming less of a demand & iran has oil that will glut the market as well. why do you think trump wants to do away with the deal we & the rest of the world made with them?

because it was a bad deal and everyone has said so. but that doesn't matter to you right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

oil.

the only thing worth a damn that russia had in play was oil. pootey poot had a $500 BILLION dollar deal with Exxon Mobil but couldn't get it going with existing sanctions imposed. so he wined & dined trump when he was over there in 2013 for the miss universe pageant... & groomed him into becoming his puppet. sooooooooooooo.... guess who he made SOS?.... too bad putin didn't bank on congress solidifying those sanctions AND imposing even more. i think tillerson actually had an epiphany & realizes just how deranged trump has become & is a threat to this country & beyond.

That doesn’t make any sense either. Russia could make that money easily if the price of oil increased. That could be accomplished easily by screwing with Saudi Arabia and perhaps Kuwait. Funding either jihadi or nationalist terrorists in those states would increase the price of oil as Saudi supply was interrupted. It would be a lot easier, and cheaper, than screwing around with some fanciful plan to get the one candidate that was rated least likely by every expert. Too many things had to go just right for Trump to win.

It would be more probable than the long shot Trump win the Presidency. Russians are careful chess players. They don’t plan out the game where the only way to win is for you to make fifty mistakes.

Try again.

uh-huh. oil is becoming less of a demand & iran has oil that will glut the market as well. why do you think trump wants to do away with the deal we & the rest of the world made with them?

because it was a bad deal and everyone has said so. but that doesn't matter to you right?

"Everyone has said so" = ridiculous lie.

 

[SavannahMann]

How about undermin

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

How about undermining Democracy by choosing figures that would destabilize the target countries. Not only the US but it's also known that Russia supported Le Pen, Wilders and the Brexit vote. Ideologically speaking they all have one thing in common. The parties involved if successful weaken the stability of the country. Pro-Ukip Twitter account with 100,000 followers may be Russian disinformation campaign Marine Le Pen's links to Russia under US scrutiny
Leaving EU, Restoring Trade Ties With Russia to Be Priority for Netherlands

So Russia’s goal is global thermonuclear war. Because destabilizing the world increases the scenarios in which nuclear war is probable.

That one doesn’t seem to make any sense. The idea that the rising tide of nationalism somehow empowers Russia is also a stretch of fevered imagination. It increases tensions, especially between trade partners, and increases the chance of trade wars and outright breaks in diplomacy. One example, the EU and Russia seem to be united in opposing the decertification of the Iran nuke deal. Oddly enough Democrats seem similarly outraged by the move. So is Russia the good guys trying to maintain peace? Or are the Russians trying to sew disharmony and the Democrats are patsies?

If the goal was further tensions, then supporting the American decision would seem to be in Russian self interest.

Sorry, your theory does not stand up to even momentary scrutiny.

Really?
-First of destabilizing ideological opponents does not lead to thermonuclear war. Russian support for Cuba, S-Vietnam, Afghanistan, N-Korea and dozens of other countries led to war but not thermonuclear war. Neither did support for the IRA the Rote Armee Fraction and other terrorist organizations. The US interfered in many elections so did Russia.
Saying that destabilizing your opponents leads to thermonuclear war is objectively false.

Let me start by apologizing for taking so long to get back to you. The only excuse is that life, and work, happened and consumed what time I had.

The principles of nuclear war were laid out not overnight but over a long period. At the end of the Second World War, they were viewed as tactical, in other words, just big powerful bombs, with little difference to any other weapon. Truman was perhaps alone in viewing them as something more. There was a great controversy over the refusal to use these big powerful bombs on North Korea. Truman stood firm, and the attitude began to change. Eisenhower did not see targets worth the bomb, in other words the bombs were city busters, and North Korea did not have much in the way of cities to bomb.

By Vietnam the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction had become the standard of our possession and deployment of the Bomb. But there were still advocates of tactical nuclear weapons. The Davey Crocket is one example where the use of these bombs on the battlefield would be if not routine then at least possible, and theoretically practical. The Cuban Missile Crisis as another example had nuclear weapons for beach defense against a Marine Assault. A weapon we were not even aware the Soviets had in Cuba.

We avoided nuclear war in Cuba by the literal skin of our teeth or perhaps I should say by the good graces of a few Soviet Commanders who refused to employ the weapons as they had been directed to. The Submarines were armed with Nuclear Torpedoes and had orders to fire them if they were forced to the surface by enemy forces. It was those commanders who refused to fire their weapons that prevented the war then. Because if our ships had vanished in a flash of nuclear fire, our response would have been to bomb the crap out of them.

The difference between 1945 and 1962 is obvious. We as a people, had almost a generation to get accustomed to the power, and the destruction of the weapons. The implications of our use of them was also now beginning to be understood. Ten years previously, they were viewed by many as tactical weapons. To some even during the 1960’s to even today there is a tactical deployment possibility for the nukes.

This mindset did not change until Ronald Reagan was elected. The mindset of MAD that is. That mindset was finally challenged, to the horror of many, who felt that MAD had prevented Nuclear War by making it a no win scenario. Reagan challenged it and said we could and should act to defend ourselves from these weapons. By applying the Dreadnaught effect he hoped to make the weapons obsolete. Reagan did not believe you could win a nuclear war, but he hoped that you could increase the numbers who survived.

So what is different today? What makes me think that nuclear war is a definite possibility today? Why now instead of ten years ago?

Partly it is the people. We don’t have a JFK to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. We don’t have a Truman to insist that authority to release the weapons rest with the President. We don’t have an Eisenhower with the long range strategic experience that allowed him to see that the weapons would be wasted in North Korea.

Before you argue that I am opposed to Trump, or believe that Hillary would be great let me say this. I think Hillary losing was the best possible outcome of the election. Need I go on?

But Trump is strategic in his thinking, just not geopolitical. As a business man he has had to stand up and head for the exit to push a negotiation to the conclusion, even walking away from some in reality. That served him well in the business world, but is not really comparable to the world of international politics.

Let me give you a scenario where nuclear could creep in. The Russians are in Syria fighting openly, unlike North Korea and Vietnam, where they fought secretly. Openly fighting for Assad. We are in Syria, openly. Not secretly like in dozens of brush wars like Afghanistan. This is the first time we have been openly facing each other since the Balkins. In that, thank the various Deities that people may believe in, a Brit managed to prevent an escalation that would have gone very bad. Gen Sir Mike Jackson: My clash with Nato chief

Syria is a different matter. We are supporting the radical elements that want to replace the recognized Government with some vague promise of things being better, or something, if we allow a Jihadist group to take control. This is Hillary’s mess, and Trump should have pulled out the troops ten seconds after swearing the oath.

Because escalation is almost guaranteed. Eventually their troops will swear that they came under fire from our troops, or vice versa, and that will mean we or they fire back. Missiles will fly, bombs will fall, and then bigger missiles will fly from the Russian Ships, and our ships will fire at theirs.

Reagan was right, MAD was where you hold a gun to my head and I hold one to yours. It isn’t safety, it isn’t stability. It is insanity. We are approaching the era of MAD again, only now our troops are firing at the allies of the Russians and they are firing at our allies. We are both there, and those who snort and announce we could whip them with both hands tied behind our backs sound very much like similar experts in November 1941.

- Secondly, it's also false that destabilizing your opponents doesn't help your country. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster for the EU, it weakens their trade position and the ability to extend their trade power. This makes it more likely that vulnerable nations like the Baltic States and Poland and others to try to come to some sort of accommodation with Russia. The same applies to weakening NATO, what electing Trump certainly did.

It is interesting to see the end of Nationalism as a recognized valid principle. Nationalism as defined as this. We focus on our people first. When we elect a President, it is not the President of the World, but of the United States. The United States Senators are Senators of the United States. Not the World.

Nationalism has led to revolutions where dictators were overthrown. Nationalism has led to establishment of nations and independent peoples. Those Baltic states you mention, were once part of the Hungary Austrian empire under the Hapsburgs. While the First and Second World Wars were awful, it is true that the independence of those people, as their own nation, where self determination was the rule, was a good thing. It took a long time to get there, but eventually we have. Today, in Catalonian areas of Spain, this cry is being heard again. A century after it was heard in Hungarian Austrian Empire. Freedom.

Nationalism is about freedom of self determination. I’m not talking about ethic purges, those are an abomination. I’m talking about people saying I am Catalonian first, and European Second. That is what Brexit was. The British People wanted to be British first.

The challenge of any Government body is to represent the people. The EU is failing at that. They can represent the European part of the people, but not the part that truly identifies with the people. The identification that we put on ourselves. The part that we embrace. That which we say we are.

Trump does not represent the Liberal principles and is therefore “Not My President” for many. Obama had the same problem. So did Bush. So there is great dissatisfaction with the system, because many feel that they are not represented by the larger part.

I believe that self determination is vitally important. I believe that the right of the people to determine what is in their own best interests is a vital part of freedom. I believe they should be allowed to explore this right up until they harm another. I don’t mean harming their trade position, or whatever. I mean physical harm. The aforementioned ethnic cleansing is one example of that kind of harm.

Self Determination is what drives our political world. It is what drives our perception of freedom. When we are free to say we stand together for this, but not for that.

-Thirdly, even if in some cases the interests of adversarial nations come together how does that negate the adversarial nature of them?
- Fourthly, none of this is relevant. See nobody of note, not even the current administration is really denying that Russia meddled in the elections of countries. The fact that you question the validity of the motive doesn't change that. It's smoke and mirrors. I engaged the premise because I could quite easily answer it. So lets see if you have the balls of doing the same? I gave you four counterarguments please address them?

I’m skipping three because it is already more or less addressed. I’ll continue.

What are the Russians supposed to have done? Hacked the DNC and Hillary Campaigns and released the information through Wikileaks. This is about all anyone really agrees on. I’m even willing to grant it for the sake of argument. I’m not sure that’s what happened, because the Server was examined by contractors not the DOJ or FBI. But I’ll accept it for the purpose of the argument.

That would indicate an opposition to Hillary more than a desire for Trump. Let’s say you hate the Denver Broncos. You don’t care who wins the football championship. You don’t care who it is so long as it isn’t Denver. You get ahold of the playbook that Denver is going to use for the playoff game. You publish it online. You helped the Rams in this theoretical exercise, but that wasn’t your goal. Your goal was the hurt the Broncos.

So why would the Russians want to hurt Hillary? The answer is above. Syria and later Ukraine. Russia has one Naval Base in the Mediterranean Sea. It is in Syria. That base becomes untenable if Jihadists take over the nation. Now you know this is true, and why we were involved in Syria in the first place, and why the Russians won’t give up. We can’t win, because they can’t afford for us to lose. Their entire strategic position in the world is lost if the base is lost.

Fast forward. Syria is now a quagmire, and the Russians show no indication of giving up on Assad despite all the rhetoric and pressure from us. Suddenly Right Wing groups in Ukraine are in the streets. We swore that we were not behind it, yet the US Supported Leader was somehow the one who ended up in charge. Pure coincidence I’m sure.

That this threatened the Naval Base that the Russians have had on Crimea is of course, just another coincidence. A lot of those seem to be going on around here don’t they?

While that was going on, the CIA was buying weapons in Eastern Europe and sending them to Jordan, where they were given to our Jihadist groups, or sold to ISIS.

As for fucking with our election, how many times have we done it to others? Let’s say you are a student in school. You play jokes on people by tripping them as they walk around you. You did this fifty times. Then someone trips you. All of a sudden, this is a terrible thing. All of a sudden it is practically a cause for war. But it wasn’t a cause for war when we did it to Israel, or any other nation. No, then it was our natural interest in the foreign policy situation.

Wikileaks Asange says that it was a leak from staffers, not the Russians. But what would he know right? I mean, we have the report from the modern version of Pinkerton to prove him wrong.

So where am I after all of this? I don’t know that they did it. I believe it is possible, perhaps even probable. But even if they did hack the servers, and bogart the emails, and release them. They did not tell any lies. They just let the words of the people themselves speak. As for some sort of cause for war or some unforgivable sin get back to me after we make reparations for even half of what we have done to others.

We’ve been a bully for a long time. At most, we got a taste of our own medicine. Not to get Trump elected but to harm Hillary who was the Secretary of State when the State Department violated international sanctions to send weapons to Libya.

 

[forkup]

How about undermin

What was Russia supposed to get? Russia wants us out so Syria. Trump is doubling down on that disaster. Russia wants Trump to keep the Iran Nuclear deal alive. Trump is torpedoing that.

So what exactly is it that Russia was supposed to gain? Obviously not influence on foreign policy. Is Russia opposed to Obamacare? Was it supposed to get them their vacation homes back? Some tolerance and understanding towards Venezuela? Russia isn’t loaning them any money either.

This is where all the theories fall down. What was the goal of this grand conspiracy? You see. A good theory has a goal. The reason why they are doing all these things. JFK was assassinated to get us into Vietnam, or to punish him for Cuba, or to prevent the exposure of his affair with Marilyn Monroe. FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US into war.

What was the goal?

How about undermining Democracy by choosing figures that would destabilize the target countries. Not only the US but it's also known that Russia supported Le Pen, Wilders and the Brexit vote. Ideologically speaking they all have one thing in common. The parties involved if successful weaken the stability of the country. Pro-Ukip Twitter account with 100,000 followers may be Russian disinformation campaign Marine Le Pen's links to Russia under US scrutiny
Leaving EU, Restoring Trade Ties With Russia to Be Priority for Netherlands

So Russia’s goal is global thermonuclear war. Because destabilizing the world increases the scenarios in which nuclear war is probable.

That one doesn’t seem to make any sense. The idea that the rising tide of nationalism somehow empowers Russia is also a stretch of fevered imagination. It increases tensions, especially between trade partners, and increases the chance of trade wars and outright breaks in diplomacy. One example, the EU and Russia seem to be united in opposing the decertification of the Iran nuke deal. Oddly enough Democrats seem similarly outraged by the move. So is Russia the good guys trying to maintain peace? Or are the Russians trying to sew disharmony and the Democrats are patsies?

If the goal was further tensions, then supporting the American decision would seem to be in Russian self interest.

Sorry, your theory does not stand up to even momentary scrutiny.

Really?
-First of destabilizing ideological opponents does not lead to thermonuclear war. Russian support for Cuba, S-Vietnam, Afghanistan, N-Korea and dozens of other countries led to war but not thermonuclear war. Neither did support for the IRA the Rote Armee Fraction and other terrorist organizations. The US interfered in many elections so did Russia.
Saying that destabilizing your opponents leads to thermonuclear war is objectively false.

Let me start by apologizing for taking so long to get back to you. The only excuse is that life, and work, happened and consumed what time I had.

The principles of nuclear war were laid out not overnight but over a long period. At the end of the Second World War, they were viewed as tactical, in other words, just big powerful bombs, with little difference to any other weapon. Truman was perhaps alone in viewing them as something more. There was a great controversy over the refusal to use these big powerful bombs on North Korea. Truman stood firm, and the attitude began to change. Eisenhower did not see targets worth the bomb, in other words the bombs were city busters, and North Korea did not have much in the way of cities to bomb.

By Vietnam the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction had become the standard of our possession and deployment of the Bomb. But there were still advocates of tactical nuclear weapons. The Davey Crocket is one example where the use of these bombs on the battlefield would be if not routine then at least possible, and theoretically practical. The Cuban Missile Crisis as another example had nuclear weapons for beach defense against a Marine Assault. A weapon we were not even aware the Soviets had in Cuba.

We avoided nuclear war in Cuba by the literal skin of our teeth or perhaps I should say by the good graces of a few Soviet Commanders who refused to employ the weapons as they had been directed to. The Submarines were armed with Nuclear Torpedoes and had orders to fire them if they were forced to the surface by enemy forces. It was those commanders who refused to fire their weapons that prevented the war then. Because if our ships had vanished in a flash of nuclear fire, our response would have been to bomb the crap out of them.

The difference between 1945 and 1962 is obvious. We as a people, had almost a generation to get accustomed to the power, and the destruction of the weapons. The implications of our use of them was also now beginning to be understood. Ten years previously, they were viewed by many as tactical weapons. To some even during the 1960’s to even today there is a tactical deployment possibility for the nukes.

This mindset did not change until Ronald Reagan was elected. The mindset of MAD that is. That mindset was finally challenged, to the horror of many, who felt that MAD had prevented Nuclear War by making it a no win scenario. Reagan challenged it and said we could and should act to defend ourselves from these weapons. By applying the Dreadnaught effect he hoped to make the weapons obsolete. Reagan did not believe you could win a nuclear war, but he hoped that you could increase the numbers who survived.

So what is different today? What makes me think that nuclear war is a definite possibility today? Why now instead of ten years ago?

Partly it is the people. We don’t have a JFK to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. We don’t have a Truman to insist that authority to release the weapons rest with the President. We don’t have an Eisenhower with the long range strategic experience that allowed him to see that the weapons would be wasted in North Korea.

Before you argue that I am opposed to Trump, or believe that Hillary would be great let me say this. I think Hillary losing was the best possible outcome of the election. Need I go on?

But Trump is strategic in his thinking, just not geopolitical. As a business man he has had to stand up and head for the exit to push a negotiation to the conclusion, even walking away from some in reality. That served him well in the business world, but is not really comparable to the world of international politics.

Let me give you a scenario where nuclear could creep in. The Russians are in Syria fighting openly, unlike North Korea and Vietnam, where they fought secretly. Openly fighting for Assad. We are in Syria, openly. Not secretly like in dozens of brush wars like Afghanistan. This is the first time we have been openly facing each other since the Balkins. In that, thank the various Deities that people may believe in, a Brit managed to prevent an escalation that would have gone very bad. Gen Sir Mike Jackson: My clash with Nato chief

Syria is a different matter. We are supporting the radical elements that want to replace the recognized Government with some vague promise of things being better, or something, if we allow a Jihadist group to take control. This is Hillary’s mess, and Trump should have pulled out the troops ten seconds after swearing the oath.

Because escalation is almost guaranteed. Eventually their troops will swear that they came under fire from our troops, or vice versa, and that will mean we or they fire back. Missiles will fly, bombs will fall, and then bigger missiles will fly from the Russian Ships, and our ships will fire at theirs.

Reagan was right, MAD was where you hold a gun to my head and I hold one to yours. It isn’t safety, it isn’t stability. It is insanity. We are approaching the era of MAD again, only now our troops are firing at the allies of the Russians and they are firing at our allies. We are both there, and those who snort and announce we could whip them with both hands tied behind our backs sound very much like similar experts in November 1941.

- Secondly, it's also false that destabilizing your opponents doesn't help your country. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster for the EU, it weakens their trade position and the ability to extend their trade power. This makes it more likely that vulnerable nations like the Baltic States and Poland and others to try to come to some sort of accommodation with Russia. The same applies to weakening NATO, what electing Trump certainly did.

It is interesting to see the end of Nationalism as a recognized valid principle. Nationalism as defined as this. We focus on our people first. When we elect a President, it is not the President of the World, but of the United States. The United States Senators are Senators of the United States. Not the World.

Nationalism has led to revolutions where dictators were overthrown. Nationalism has led to establishment of nations and independent peoples. Those Baltic states you mention, were once part of the Hungary Austrian empire under the Hapsburgs. While the First and Second World Wars were awful, it is true that the independence of those people, as their own nation, where self determination was the rule, was a good thing. It took a long time to get there, but eventually we have. Today, in Catalonian areas of Spain, this cry is being heard again. A century after it was heard in Hungarian Austrian Empire. Freedom.

Nationalism is about freedom of self determination. I’m not talking about ethic purges, those are an abomination. I’m talking about people saying I am Catalonian first, and European Second. That is what Brexit was. The British People wanted to be British first.

The challenge of any Government body is to represent the people. The EU is failing at that. They can represent the European part of the people, but not the part that truly identifies with the people. The identification that we put on ourselves. The part that we embrace. That which we say we are.

Trump does not represent the Liberal principles and is therefore “Not My President” for many. Obama had the same problem. So did Bush. So there is great dissatisfaction with the system, because many feel that they are not represented by the larger part.

I believe that self determination is vitally important. I believe that the right of the people to determine what is in their own best interests is a vital part of freedom. I believe they should be allowed to explore this right up until they harm another. I don’t mean harming their trade position, or whatever. I mean physical harm. The aforementioned ethnic cleansing is one example of that kind of harm.

Self Determination is what drives our political world. It is what drives our perception of freedom. When we are free to say we stand together for this, but not for that.

-Thirdly, even if in some cases the interests of adversarial nations come together how does that negate the adversarial nature of them?
- Fourthly, none of this is relevant. See nobody of note, not even the current administration is really denying that Russia meddled in the elections of countries. The fact that you question the validity of the motive doesn't change that. It's smoke and mirrors. I engaged the premise because I could quite easily answer it. So lets see if you have the balls of doing the same? I gave you four counterarguments please address them?

I’m skipping three because it is already more or less addressed. I’ll continue.

What are the Russians supposed to have done? Hacked the DNC and Hillary Campaigns and released the information through Wikileaks. This is about all anyone really agrees on. I’m even willing to grant it for the sake of argument. I’m not sure that’s what happened, because the Server was examined by contractors not the DOJ or FBI. But I’ll accept it for the purpose of the argument.

That would indicate an opposition to Hillary more than a desire for Trump. Let’s say you hate the Denver Broncos. You don’t care who wins the football championship. You don’t care who it is so long as it isn’t Denver. You get ahold of the playbook that Denver is going to use for the playoff game. You publish it online. You helped the Rams in this theoretical exercise, but that wasn’t your goal. Your goal was the hurt the Broncos.

So why would the Russians want to hurt Hillary? The answer is above. Syria and later Ukraine. Russia has one Naval Base in the Mediterranean Sea. It is in Syria. That base becomes untenable if Jihadists take over the nation. Now you know this is true, and why we were involved in Syria in the first place, and why the Russians won’t give up. We can’t win, because they can’t afford for us to lose. Their entire strategic position in the world is lost if the base is lost.

Fast forward. Syria is now a quagmire, and the Russians show no indication of giving up on Assad despite all the rhetoric and pressure from us. Suddenly Right Wing groups in Ukraine are in the streets. We swore that we were not behind it, yet the US Supported Leader was somehow the one who ended up in charge. Pure coincidence I’m sure.

That this threatened the Naval Base that the Russians have had on Crimea is of course, just another coincidence. A lot of those seem to be going on around here don’t they?

While that was going on, the CIA was buying weapons in Eastern Europe and sending them to Jordan, where they were given to our Jihadist groups, or sold to ISIS.

As for fucking with our election, how many times have we done it to others? Let’s say you are a student in school. You play jokes on people by tripping them as they walk around you. You did this fifty times. Then someone trips you. All of a sudden, this is a terrible thing. All of a sudden it is practically a cause for war. But it wasn’t a cause for war when we did it to Israel, or any other nation. No, then it was our natural interest in the foreign policy situation.

Wikileaks Asange says that it was a leak from staffers, not the Russians. But what would he know right? I mean, we have the report from the modern version of Pinkerton to prove him wrong.

So where am I after all of this? I don’t know that they did it. I believe it is possible, perhaps even probable. But even if they did hack the servers, and bogart the emails, and release them. They did not tell any lies. They just let the words of the people themselves speak. As for some sort of cause for war or some unforgivable sin get back to me after we make reparations for even half of what we have done to others.

We’ve been a bully for a long time. At most, we got a taste of our own medicine. Not to get Trump elected but to harm Hillary who was the Secretary of State when the State Department violated international sanctions to send weapons to Libya.

I was pleasantly surprised too hear back from you, I usually don't after this long, so thank you.
Your post is kind of long so I'll try to condense your arguments. If this leads me to misrepresent your position feel free too correct me.
-Your first point seems too be a short history of the nuclear arms race. Followed by the assertion that nuclear war is possible in this day and age so Russia meddling in the election doesn't make any sense. As an argument it doesn't make sense, what's more you know it since you kind of tentatively admitted that they did exactly that further down in your post. You then gave a bunch of excuses for them doing it, but it does blow the premise of your original post out of the water. I just as you recognize that there is a real danger of nuclear war today but that's not what your original argument was. We probably agree on more things geo-politically btw.
- As to the second point. My assertion was that if you destabilize a rival nation(s) you strengthen your own position. You replied by giving an explanation why Brexit was a moral choice for Britain. Again its an answer to the question if people have the right to choose nationalistic leaders and policy, not a rebuttal to my assertion.
-My third point wasn't addressed at all.
-My fourth argument, you basically conceded.
One of the justifications you were giving I'dd like to address specifically. The one that Russia wasn't helping Trump but attacking Clinton. How does that make any practical difference?