| | | If you support your point with nonsense, then you haven't actually supported your point. You decided to claim you have researched the weapons and determined they were all at the upper range of where they were decades ago. Which is not accurate. So why should the rest of your screed be taken seriously? Please.
Do you want to argue that Russia has dangerous nuclear weapons? Fine. Hard to argue with that. But don't try to buttress your argument with "facts" you pull out of you ass. Especially when those "facts" are pure propaganda; Spouting known propaganda to support an argument that happens to benefit the originator of that propaganda doesn't burnish your credibility.
Putin has been threatening to go nuclear for years. This is known as "terrorism". You are arguing that we need to appease a terrorist or he will do awful things. The thing is, there is no guarantee that he won't do awful things even if he gets his way. And what happens if he is never satisfied? Because he can't be. The lessons from WWI and WWII is that you cannot conquer a modern, industrialized country and wind up with anything by liabilities. This isn't the Ancient World where land, access to resources and a complaint population was all you needed when you conquered an area. You also need infrastructure, which you usually have to destroy to take the land. And you need to be able to defend it, Throwing up a few dozen wooden stockades just doesn't cut it any more. Not to mention, integrating it into your own economy, even as a colony it is expensive. So he will need to conquer more, hopefully with other countries just capitulating instead of resisting. Round and round.
So there is that. Want a stellar example? Look at Crimea. It has been a major drain on the Russian economy. From the Kerch Bridge, to the port expansions, the air defenses, additional military bases and so on, the costs have been enormous. Crimea is a huge drain, and the oil and gas it made available has not come close to paying for it. The economic drain has been weighing the Russian economy down and the Russian public was growing restless as a result. Which was one of the reasons for the Ukrainian Misadventure, although it wouldn't have taken much to get Putin to pull that particular trigger.
For all of its faults, the West understands this. Not to mention, wars of conquest leads to refugees and waves of refugees can cause all kinds of problems for developed countries. And they are bad for business, short term. Hence the strong measures to discourage such. |
|
