The Ship Model Forum

Not worried about "world opinion". Same bunch of idiots that scream they hate us line up for our money and assistance.
Better our enemies fear us than not.
As to pulling out of the middle east, that won't happen no matter who is in the White House or Congress.

Walt wrote:Credibility will be restored to the US a week after it pulls out of Iraq and Bosnia etc. and closes it's bases in Germany and the rest of mainland Europe.

Some people who resent the low esteemm held by the US seems to think in the same way as would early teenage girls cuddling Barbie dolls when they are rebuked - That if only the US were to pout with sufficient determination, the rest of the world would see the error of their ways start showering us with adoration again.

On the contrary, if we were to pout and withdraw from the world, then the credibility of the US must labor under further burden of flakiness, churlishness and unpredictability in addition to the burdens of foolishness, blindsidedness and strong partiality that it must already carry thanks to the epic work of the current administration.

If the US were to pull out of the world, what remains of US credibility would instantly vanish - Gone without recall. Other powers would rub their hands in glee and instantly step into the vacume to block any avenue we may have for restoring our influence. Neither our influence nor credibility can ever again be significantly repaired by our own power unless an almost exact repeat of WWII were to occur.

Think about that next time when you hear talk of the ungratfulness of the world and what we should do about it.

Walt wrote:Credibility will be restored to the US a week after it pulls out of Iraq and Bosnia etc. and closes it's bases in Germany and the rest of mainland Europe.
Because then the rest of the World will be dealing with the results and the world's firemen not being anywhere around to put out their fires.
I for one 2nd that notion.
All the sheep hate a big bad smelly sheepdog.. they eat too much, are unruley and mean, and make poor pets.
But they will surely yell for them when the Wolves come stalking around...It's just they way it is and always has been. That's how smelley old sheepdogs get credibility..

As a Euro-sceptic this may sound very far fetched but if the US was to go back into semi- isolation then I would hazard a guess and I think the situation might well galvanize the EU as an entity like no other, economically and militarily. Think about that. For me I hope the US stays as the main player.
Dave Wooley

Credibility will be restored to the US a week after it pulls out of Iraq and Bosnia etc. and closes it's bases in Germany and the rest of mainland Europe.
Because then the rest of the World will be dealing with the results and the world's firemen not being anywhere around to put out their fires.
I for one 2nd that notion.
All the sheep hate a big bad smelly sheepdog.. they eat too much, are unruley and mean, and make poor pets.
But they will surely yell for them when the Wolves come stalking around...It's just they way it is and always has been. That's how smelley old sheepdogs get credibility..

Whatever reputation the USA currently has is because it doesn't bomb your country back into the stone age like Grozny wen you have a minor disagreement with them.

The freedom to smack the USA around without consequences is practically the only reason the current world political environment exists.

If the US foreign policy were run by a Molotov-like character and backed up by someone with the morals of Beria and Stalin, there would be an entirely less pleasant character to world diplomacy.

chuck wrote:

Werner wrote:If Russia wants instant credibility, all she has to do is rip Kim's nuclear arm off. .

If the US wants instant credibility, all we had to do was topple Saddma, right?



If many people believed that Russia actually had the capability to both rip Kim's arms off and weather the consequences, then she would have had good credibility. But she has neither capability now and everyone knows it. However, contrary to the expectation of neoconservative in this country, Russia credibility is saved from utter ruin by the simple fact that she can put into power people who are aware of these limitations. So while she has none of the big guns any more, she can still be a descent bet for not shooting her in the foot in the near future with the little BB guns she still has, So she still has a little credibility. In many quarters, Russia's minute credibility is a lot greater than ours.

We had the capability to rip Saddam's army off. But we did not have the capability to weather the consequences. Furthermore we elected people into position of dominating influences who were as utterly oblivious to that fact as a neaderthal might have been to calculus. We do not know what sort of things would make a fool of ourselves. So no one trust us to not do them. This is why we have no credibility now. Only those who believe they can exploit our basist instincts, interpreted in the most crude and simple minded fashion, still believe we can be relied upon.

I dont think that Russia has more credibility than the USA........if something goes wrong anywhere in the world and someone needs help who do they call? Who will they always ask for help? Sure Iraq isnt popular but in all seriousness we havent lost very many soldiers in comparison to other wars, its not even close. The attitude of the American public is all that has changed in relation to losses. Also i have friends in Iraq atm and its not NEARLY as bad as the media portrays it. Sure people die every day there but how many people die on the streets of L.A. or New York from gang violence? Im sure the numbers are higher for the gangs. Ne way sorry to rant, I dont see how Russia can make much of a difference in the Pacific. IMO it would be like Germany pre WW1 to try to match the British fleet. It will just be a waste of money for Russia.

chuck wrote:

JWintjes wrote: Hey! That's outright discrimination! Where's the board police?!!!

You get Geico commercials over there too?

Never mind, you wouldn't understand unless you watch US Television.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,

have you ever considered that I might just be able to master the barest of basics of the internet? There's at least one rather, well, strong indicator of that.



Jorit

chuck wrote:

JWintjes wrote: Your view of the world is about as simplistic as that of someone you probably don't want to be compared with, you know...

Jorit

The only person I really wouldn't want to be compared to would be.........You. But, fortunately, so long as I can put cause before effect, I would be in no danger of being compared to you.

Well, indeed, as long as you are so endlessly boring and putting cause before effect, you're far from being comparable in any way to me.



Jorit

JWintjes wrote:

We had the capability to rip Saddam's army off. But we did not have the capability to weather the consequences. Furthermore we elected people into position of dominating influences who were as utterly oblivious to that fact as a neaderthal might have been to calculus.

Hey! That's outright discrimination! Where's the board police?!!!

You get Geico commercials over there too?

Never mind, you wouldn't understand unless you watch US Television.

JWintjes wrote: Your view of the world is about as simplistic as that of someone you probably don't want to be compared with, you know...

Jorit

The only person I really wouldn't want to be compared to would be.........You. But, fortunately, so long as I can put cause before effect, I would be in no danger of being compared to you.

chuck wrote: So while she has none of the big guns any more, she can still be a descent bet for not shooting her in the foot in the near future with the little BB guns she still has, So she still has a little credibility.

While I doubt that any Russian politician would agree on being on descent in any way, I'm also highly sceptical on whether they really have as much political acumen as you want them to have.

In many quarters, Russia's minute credibility is a lot greater than ours.

And where exactly might that be? Sure, continental Europe is partly dependent on Russian gas. And we just love to think of us being the smart guys playing the Russian card against them evil and dumb Americans. But mind you, this has little to do with Russian "credibility".

We had the capability to rip Saddam's army off. But we did not have the capability to weather the consequences. Furthermore we elected people into position of dominating influences who were as utterly oblivious to that fact as a neaderthal might have been to calculus.

Hey! That's outright discrimination! Where's the board police?!!!

So no one trust us to not do them. This is why we have no credibility now. Only those who believe they can exploit our basist instincts, interpreted in the most crude and simple minded fashion, still believe we can be relied upon.

Your view of the world is about as simplistic as that of someone you probably don't want to be compared with, you know...

Fact is, there is still a lot of credibility for the US out there. Granted, it's not born out of love, rather out of desperation. But nevertheless it's there.

Jorit

Werner wrote:If Russia wants instant credibility, all she has to do is rip Kim's nuclear arm off. .

If the US wants instant credibility, all we had to do was topple Saddma, right?



If many people believed that Russia actually had the capability to both rip Kim's arms off and weather the consequences, then she would have had good credibility. But she has neither capability now and everyone knows it. However, contrary to the expectation of neoconservative in this country, Russia credibility is saved from utter ruin by the simple fact that she can put into power people who are aware of these limitations. So while she has none of the big guns any more, she can still be a descent bet for not shooting her in the foot in the near future with the little BB guns she still has, So she still has a little credibility. In many quarters, Russia's minute credibility is a lot greater than ours.

We had the capability to rip Saddam's army off. But we did not have the capability to weather the consequences. Furthermore we elected people into position of dominating influences who were as utterly oblivious to that fact as a neaderthal might have been to calculus. We do not know what sort of things would make a fool of ourselves. So no one trust us to not do them. This is why we have no credibility now. Only those who believe they can exploit our basist instincts, interpreted in the most crude and simple minded fashion, still believe we can be relied upon.

If Russia wants instant credibility, all she has to do is rip Kim's nuclear arm off. We'll all be properly respectful and beholden.

The simple truth is that Russia's military preparedness is a little south of Switzerland's.

With Herculean effort and no small amount of foreign capital, they can keep the Cosmodrome running. The missiles launched from SLBMs and other sites have been uniform failures.

Most pilots in their service do not get enough flight hours per year to remain pilots in the Western sense of the term.

Russia probably wants a real seat on any negotiating table in Asia. Lately any negotiation she's been invited to participate come with the priviso that she is to keep her mouth shut out of gratitude and let adults conduct the real business. An example is the 6-way Korea talks, where the only voice is heard but never registered is that of Russia. This has to rankle with Russian nationalists, who tends to be very quick in perceiving any hint of a slight to Russia's self-image, but very slow thinking in every other way (Very much like American neoconservatives, if you ask me)

So Russia thinks the way to get the seat is to equip herself not to be a independent power to beat down all opponents - that is currently beyond her means even by the estimates of most nationalists - but to be a spoiler whose participation could tip any closely matched contest. This way her voice must be heard because letting Russia have her way would be cheaper than having Russia throw her lot in with one's opponents.

Of course this is a somewhat desparate move, for there is no indication that the Pacific region, for the time being, can sustain any small or moderate conflicts without the involvement of the Superpower. The superpower in question is also currently under the influence of neoconservatives, but unlike Russia, this superpower actually is a superpower. In any major conflict involving the US, Russia is currently quite incapable of fielding a force to do anything like tipping the balance against the stronger side.

So she can not get her voice heard by making the credible threat of siding with the weaker side, and her voice would become background noise if she throws in with the stronger side. The only way this move can bring Russia gain is if somehow, defying all expectations, the weaker side were to cause the stronger side an infinite amount of trouble as is the case in Iraq. But in a predominantly naval war that would be nearly impossible. One does not seek civilian cover and wage guerella war on the high seas. But just like the superpower thought guerrilla war would be no problem because recognizing it as a problem would be inconvenient, Russia thinks guerrila war would certainly be a big problem for the superpower even if we are talking about the open sea, because recognizing that she has almost no levers is too painful.

So I would guess this move is primarily aimed at a slow thinking domestic audience.

I think Russia sees a lot of problems in the East.

Japan's domestic politics still look forward to revovery of the Kuriles, Japan and China have designs on Russia's offshore resources, and the USA is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Russia's Pacific Fleet is poorly placed for offensive warfare. They really need to expand to be a credible deterrent.

Who do you think they are more worried about, the US or China?

Interesting...

Russia: Asia Risks Require Strong Fleet
By Reuters
New York Times
April 7, 2007
Pg. 6

Russia will convert its Pacific fleet into its biggest naval force to meet security threats in Asia, said Sergei B. Ivanov, the defense minister who was promoted to first deputy prime minister this year. He said Russia�s Northern fleet was its strongest during the Cold War but asked, �Now, who are we going to fight there?� Relations with NATO are not bad, Russian news agencies quoted him as saying during a trip to Khabarovsk in Russia�s Far East, �but here the risks are greater.� Of Russia�s four fleets, three � the Black Sea, Northern and Baltic fleets � are designed to cope with Western threats. But the Pacific fleet lacks any of the system of agreements and mechanisms intended to keep peace in Europe, Mr. Ivanov said. �This is a region where there is a risk of conflict,� he said. �Here you have the United States, China, Korea and Japan, and there are absolutely no rules of the game.�