The Trump Presidency Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

longz

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (325483)	3/8/2025 2:57:37 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) of 358478

It depends on what the US is shooting at. Alaska is better for hitting eastern regions of Russia like Siberia and the Far East, which do have military bases and missile base. And it is far easier to supply Greenland is better for striking Russia’s western region—its political and industrial core around Moscow and European Russia. So, you need both if you are in fact planning for a nightmare scenario where Russia launches first since it can strike from two regions. If you have two massive bases for launching attacks, then you split the Russian defensive capability and the assumption is that you increase the threat to Russia in the case of their first strike, which will be determined by where they're put their money. It is important to take away the lesson from Reagan, when he saw the USSR being financially weak, he believed he could "break" them financially with an arms race utilizing the notion of SDI to cause Russia to pour money into its military arms race. He did accomplish that, even though it cost us a lot as well.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next