several of the "counterforce" targets on the list are inconveniently located in or near major population centers

And who is responsible for locating them here? The Russians, of course--and thus civilian casualties would be on them for essentially using human shields.

I dare say I've utilized the moderation system effectively. You claim its rasion d'être is for people like me to be moderated down, and yet it is my post that was moderated to giddy heights, and the request I made in said post was quickly granted by our moderating overlords. What say you to that? Perhaps this is (no longer) the Slashdot you thought it was. Cheers

You mean the one that makes me wait months and months any time I need to see a specialist, unless it's an absolute emergency? An informed consumer of healthcare these days hardly benefits from the knowledge a mere GP can offer, which by definition is rather lacking in specificity (all they really bring to the table are the ability to write prescriptions and issue referrals). Think of it this way: you're likely spend a lot more time on the (hopefully small number of) ailments you suffer from, and the amount of research and knowledge you'd acquire would pale in comparison to what a GP is likely to have much practice with. A healthcare system that creates incredible delays when trying to reach a specialist is shit, no matter how "free" it is.

The difference between Gen. Turgidson's dramatically effective rant and what is being discussed above is that the US would have suffered few or no strikes in retaliation. The paper I quoted makes good technical arguments for that.

It's difficult to see how I could be racist against a nation of slavs when I'm a slav myself. Nice try; play again.

I love Dr. Strangelove, but the quote's hardly apropos. The paper I quoted makes a good argument that US casualties could be low to nil, and, the strike in question--being counterforce--would result in limited Russian civilian casualties.

I find it very regretful that Canada gave up its nuclear arms. One day, we may not be able to rely on the US as a deterrent. Hopefully, NATO will be reinvigorated as a result of the current crisis.

I do mod outright lies and blatant propaganda. When the poster's knowingly intellectually dishonest, the gloves are off, as it ought to be.

Once again, I'm not calling for genocide. I specifically referenced a counterforce strike to destroy their offensive nuclear capability. While civilian casualties would still be unavoidable, think of the amount of future lives that would have been saved and suffering that would be avoided.

Bulgaria was not "liberated" by the Russians; that's communist-era propaganda. It was simply replacing Ottoman occupation with expanding Russian influence in the region. As for Bulgaria joining the Axis--are you seriously suggesting a tiny country could have said no to Hitler's unstoppable-at-the time forces? It surely wasn't done lightly, as evidenced by the fact that Bulgaria is the one Axis country which did not send off its jews to concentration camps even when pushed by the Germans (and the Bulgarian king just happens to die in mysterious circumstances soon after).

In any case, I've lived in Canada most of my life now, and consider myself a Canadian. I'm taking the perspective of thiss being a struggle of western values against an evil empire.

Oh, I know Bulgaria is a shithole one way or another. It's why I moved to Canada. I don't particularly like Bulgarians much more than Russians. But I also know that the USSR made things worse. That Bulgaria sucks has no bearing on the question of whether Russian expansionism sucks; it's a red herring.

Both my Estonian acquaintances agree at least to an extent with my assessment of Russia, as does every other Eastern European I personally know.

Bulgaria, which suffered much less of the bear's hug than Poland did, but it was enough to show me the sort of love that the russkies like to export to their neighbors.

I strongly suggest you actually read your own link, as then you'd see it's irrelevant. It's regarding an antique plan where nukes play a partial role, and are delivered with antiquated methods to targets acquired and surveyed by antiquated methods. The model developed in the paper linked to in my original post is reflective of a very different modern military reality. But then, you'd have known that if you weren't too lazy to RTFA.

Responsible for a billion deaths? Come on. My post referred to a counterforce attack to take out their offensive nuclear capability, not attacking civilian areas. Targeting cities is going to be more their style, because the Russian has no compunction.

China would never cut the US off because the trade surplus it needs to keep its growth going requires someone on the other side to buy up all these exports, and for now there's no one else that can fill in for the US.

I'm not American and never have been, but as a Canadian (and ex European) I look to the US for leadership on the world stage, as the only remaining superpower. Despite all the problems with US foreign policy, the alternatives to US primacy are all far worse.

You're trying to sidestep the issue: it remains a fact that you wrote that we only have the information coming from Kiev, when in fact plenty of stories quote NATO. Whether NATO is trustworthy or doctored the photos of Russian tanks and troops streaming across the border in many stories like http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/... is completely irrelevant to whether your statement is a lie or not!

It's silly to expect sanctions to accomplish much.

After WWII, the US should have had Patton march east and take care of uncle Stalin.

There was a second chance much more recently to decisively deal with the Russian problem. A bit less than ten years ago, this paper http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar... identified the US as having achieved nuclear primacy (a shorter version can be found printed in Foreign Affairs of that year). It would have been possible at the time for the US to get away with a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. With most silos and mobile launchers on Russian territory located, a counterforce preemptive nuclear attack by the US would have resulted in the only real retaliation to be from submarine launches, which would have been few enough not to overwhelm missile defense.

The paper generated controversy and there were counterpoints from other academics and some in the military, but there was also a lot of support expressed. In any case, it's at least plausible that the US could have taken the first shot and saved an order of magnitude more pain, suffering, and deaths in the future than it would have generated. No doubt Russia's military build-up in the last decade takes this scenario out of the realm of possibility, and given the evil the russkies are doing and the tons more they've yet to perpetrate, it's a damn shame.

I expect to be modded down, as many here won't understand a sentiment generated by having survived the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. No, things haven't changed. The bear's beastly character is immutable, a fundamental aspect of it that can't be tamed or cured by diplomacy, education, or civilization.