DemocracyNow: Russia used tactical nuke threat to keep the US out of Georgian conflict

[Junkdrawer]

Col. Sam Gardiner's analysis was aired during the last 15 minutes of today's show.

Transcript later.


http://www.democracynow.org/

On edit: Gardiner based this on two facts:

1.) Russia said that any use of precision guided munitions would be met with tactical nukes.

2.) Russia moved SS-21(??) missiles capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads into position.

[mod mom]

1. WOW! nt

[Pierre.Suave]

2. Any proof of this claim?

[Junkdrawer]

4. Based on two facts:

1.) Russia said that any use of precision guided munitions would be met with tactical nukes.

2.) Russia moved SS-21(??) missiles capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads into position.

[Pierre.Suave]

6. ...

1) Where did they say that, who said it, and when?

2) How do we know this? And how do we know they are nukes?

FYI: Tomahawk Cruise missiles are also capable of being Nuclear armed, we have also launched hundreds of them, but none of them have been nuclear. just because they can, does not mean they will...

edit: also, that is not proof.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Gardiner gave details in his interview...

I was riding my bike to work at the time. Guess we'll have to wait for the transcript...

[Pierre.Suave]

10. Who is Col. Gardiner

and how is he in a position to know these things, then tell us about them?

[bananas]

21. ...

Democracynow usually has a short bio with the transcript.
Sourcewatch has some info: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sam_Gardiner
He also wrote a guest blog for prwatch: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7470

[Pierre.Suave]

27. So, a retired AF general

says something, and you accept it at face value with no supporting evidence?

How is this anything more than a guess?

[bananas]

35. You asked "Who is Col. Gardiner"

You asked, "Who is Col. Gardiner and how is he in a position to know these things, then tell us about them?"
I gave you an answer.
I didn't say I accept it at face value.
I haven't even heard the interview yet.

[Pierre.Suave]

38. You are right

I appreciate you telling me who he is, the rest of it was directed at someone else...

[crikkett]

45. OTOH nothing and nobody will convince you,

apparently.

[Pierre.Suave]

46. Not at all

so far in this thread, no one has shown the Russians actually said they would nuke us, except for a retired AF general and the white house press secretary mentioned some cruise missiles had been moved in.

Show me the proof, then I will believe it, until then I am going to remain skeptical.

[crikkett]

49. OK I'll buy that, you want a second source of this info that isn't a WH press secretary.

But you could have said this earlier and saved a lot of time.

-c

[Junkdrawer]

56. See post #55. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

17. WH Press Sec. Perino talked about the SS-21s during her press briefing...

...

In terms of how we've responded to this, the President was informed immediately on Friday, when we received news of the first two SS-21 Russian missile launchers into Georgian territory. He immediately -- this was at the Great Hall -- he immediately met with President Putin. They had a discussion. The President then engaged with his national security staff continuously over the last two days. He has spoken with -- again with Putin that evening. He then talked with President Medvedev yesterday evening, as well as President Saakashvili. Secretary Rice has spoken repeatedly with President Saakashvili, as well as with her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and many European leaders.

...


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/press-briefing-press-secretary-dana/story.aspx?guid=%7B6C07094D-D668-43FD-8353-7D1155B78BFB%7D&dist=hppr

[Pierre.Suave]

20. There is a reliable source...

the Bush administration Press Secretary...

:eyes:

A cruise missile does not have to be Nuclear Armed to be fired, it can also carry a conventional payload. I want proof the Russians said they would use nukes if the US intervened, from a reliable source.

[Junkdrawer]

55. I was in error. It was National Security Advisor Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, not Perino...

who made the statement at that press briefing.

[Pierre.Suave]

59. One bush admin official

is as good (bad) as any other as far as I am concerned...

[Junkdrawer]

28. As for the Russian tactical nuke policy....

...

The Answer to PGMs?

Many Russian military theorists believe nuclear weapons provide the best answer to the challenge posed by conventionally armed precision guided munitions, which have become such an important part of Western military strategies. Russian generals fear that, in a general war, Western nations could employ such "smart munitions" to degrade Russian strategic nuclear forces, without ever having to "go nuclear" themselves.

Consequently, said General Volkov, Russia "should enjoy the right to consider the first use of precision weapons as the beginning of an unrestricted nuclear war against it."

Senior Russian officials make clear that the US and the other NATO nations still constitute their main security concern. Recent RVSN training exercises, for example, emphasize responding to a short-warning nuclear attack from the US. Russian suspicions of NATO are heightened by its proposed expansion eastward into the former Warsaw Pact states. Oleg Grinevski, Russia's envoy to Sweden, recently warned, "If NATO expands in Europe, the nuclear threat will increase substantially."

...


http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb1997/0297russi.asp

[Pierre.Suave]

32. That is one hell of a biased source you have there...

and it is from February 1997

[Junkdrawer]

42. A quick google shows this to be talked about EXTENSIVELY in Arms Control circles....

http://www.armscontrol.ru/Start/publications/vto1100.htm

http://www.armscontrol.ru/Start/archive/news9907.htm

[tekisui]

3. Hmmmm... interesting.

Maybe this is why Georgia thought they would have back-up that never showed.

[Junkdrawer]

11. That was my take when I heard this. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

41. George Bush's Bay of Pigs moment???

:shrug:

Don't get me wrong though. I'm glad cooler heads prevailed...so far...

[bushmeister0]

5. See what I was saying about Putin?

Our war criminals have met their match with their war criminals.

[malaise]

12. You know this may actually be a good thing

This planet needs some balance and for all its ills the Soviet Union was a balance.
I'm watching the Saakashvilli Press Conference and he is beyond whipped. He made a big mistake here...he followed Bush and Condi and Europe is saying fugg off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm

[Ganja Ninja]

7. I find it hard to believe.

They didn't have to threaten us with that just to keep us out of Georgia. There is no way we could have offered any meaningful help to the Georgians given the current state of our military.

[Alcibiades]

13. That's true

With the war in afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq ongoing, only an idiot would get the US involved in a quagmire in the Caucasus.

Now, if there were oil involved, or some sort of pipeline deal, then they might take an interest.

[Karenina]

23. Gimme a break.

The Georgians are packing and wearing US*MIC gear. They're being trained by Amis and Israelis showing off their new toys.
AND guess who is airlifting 2000 Georgian soldierr from Iraq to the latest, greatest combat zone!!! :freak:

[malaise]

39. And Putin knows

http://www.russiatoday.com/

[Karenina]

68. That's a great site! Thanx!!

Took a while to get through.. Minute by minute account here: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28804

[malaise]

79. Thankfully we have options

and don't have to aceept bullshit.

[Karenina]

24. Good links here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3774608

[jayfish]

25. I Don't Remember Losing Too Many Strike Aircraft...

in the last 8 years.

Jay

[Pierre.Suave]

31. No shit

one B2 Stealth bomber and it is problem solved...

We dont need ground forces to send a stealth bomber over there.

[rustydad]

100. Is that the same bomber that....

..won the invasion of Iraq? And what pray tell should it drop on the Ruskies? Maybe a nuk? God the morons that infest DU. Bob

[Ganja Ninja]

33. You don't bomb Russian troops with impunity like we bombed

the Iraqi's or the Taliban. The Russians will fight back.

[Pierre.Suave]

36. With what?

Despite the condition our ground forces may be in, our Air Force has no such problems.

[crikkett]

47. with Nukes, silly. that's the point of the OP n/t

[Pierre.Suave]

48. With what nukes

if we can take them out with impunity...

[crikkett]

98. my my my, you're a one-note wonder.

just go away.

[jayfish]

71. Nuclear SAMs. Now That Would Be Something To See. -NT-

Jay

[Pierre.Suave]

77. I am sure that

someone, somewhere, has thought of it though...

Scary thought.

[rocktivity]

9. Well, why not? Look at how well using such a tactic

has worked for the United States...

:eyes:
rocknation

[NNN0LHI]

14. Anyone who thinks Russia would not use nukes is nuts

If Russia began building missile bases in Mexico and Canada as we are in Poland and the Czech Republic we would nuke the piss out of them without hesitation.

Take that to the bank.

Don

[Pierre.Suave]

15. ...

Are you serious?

[NNN0LHI]

16. What do you think?

You think we would let Russia or China start building missile bases on our border and not do anything?

Don

[Pierre.Suave]

18. I certainly dont think we would Nuke

Canada or Mexico...

So, why do you think Russia has not attacked those sites yet, if as you believe, they would not hesitate to use nukes?

[NNN0LHI]

34. I believe your thinking is flawed

We would nuke them if they allowed another country to start building missile bases on our borders.

The missile sites in Europe haven't been attacked because they haven't been built yet.

And they never will be either.

Don

[Pierre.Suave]

37. You think we would NUKE Canada

and let the nuclear fallout and radiation drift down here?

You must not live in the north, or south, maybe you live out west in California where you would be relatively unaffected by the fallout...

Why do you think we would nuke them and not use conventional weapons that are just as effective on the target, without destroying everything for 10s of miles around, as well as sending radiation and fallout on our own country?

[NNN0LHI]

40. US has never hesitated in detonating nuclear weapons on our continent

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/USA-ntestsS.html

[Pierre.Suave]

43. ok, how about something from

the last 50 years that we have known about the harmful effects of the radiation...

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

50. Those tests were all after Nagasaki and Hiroshima

You think we didn't know the harmful effects of radiation by then?

Come on now.

Don

[Pierre.Suave]

52. Ok...

Find me one nuclear test on US soil after 1951?

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

53. Why 1959? We nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima over a decade earlier

What is the point you are attempting to make?

If there is one.

Don

[Pierre.Suave]

57. 1951...

because you are so sure we are so willing as a country to Nuke our own country, I want to see one instance where this was done since we stopped in 1951.

[nebenaube]

62. Uh I hate to tell you this but we've

Nuked ourself like 300 times. They don't give a damn about the fallout.

[Pierre.Suave]

64. 300 times!!!!!!!!!!

LINK?

[jayfish]

73. Ask And Ye Shall Receive

History

1951–1992

Between 1951 and 1992, there were a total of 928 announced nuclear tests at Nevada Test Site. Of those, 828 were underground.<1> (Sixty-two of the underground tests included multiple, simultaneous nuclear detonations, adding 93 detonations and bringing the total number of NTS nuclear detonations to 1,021, of which 921 were underground.)<2> The site is covered with subsidence craters from the testing. The Nevada Test Site was the primary testing location of American nuclear devices; 126 tests were conducted elsewhere (many at the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site

[Pierre.Suave]

76. Hmm

I thought they stopped the atmospheric tests in 1951.

I do think detonating one underground is significantly different that dropping one on a city though...

[jayfish]

82. Those Are Only Tests Done At The Nevada Test Site.

Overall we've detonated 228 devices above ground.

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/ustable.html

Jay

[malaise]

19. You know it really is

that simple.

[KharmaTrain]

22. I Smell Astroturf

Or just some CYA...not sure which on this.

I agree...Russia didn't need to threaten Nukes...Pootie is sitting right next to the biggest fool on the planet, he knew that any "threat" from boooshie was bullshit, he had neither the military or diplomatic support to stop the Russians. Ane where would boooshie get the troops to repel this invasion? And where would he launch them from? You just don't move 15,000 troops overnight.

BTW...didn't know if you saw...and interesting timing as well...Pootie may be thinking of doing just what you're saying...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/04/russia.cuba.ap/index.html

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, Russian news reports said Monday.

The statement comes amid persistent speculation about whether Russia is seeking a military presence in a country just 90 miles (150 kilometers) from the United States in response to U.S. plans to place missile-defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"We should restore our position in Cuba and other countries," Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Sounds like the black-ops are working overtime on this one...

Cheers...

[Pierre.Suave]

26. One more thing

how about a direct link to where that info is on the Democracy now website?

I watched the entire video, no Col. Gardiner and nothing about Russia declaring they will nuke us if we try to intervene.

[Junkdrawer]

29. Link isn't up yet. When I looked, all I found was Friday's program. n/t

[Pierre.Suave]

30. ok

thanks.

[Junkdrawer]

44. BETTER LINK HERE... (No transcript yet)...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/11/up_to_2_000_killed_as

On edit: the nuclear discussion starts 50 minutes into the program.

[Pierre.Suave]

51. Thanks for the link

I would like to point out what the Colonel actually said.

What he said was to point out that Russia has had a policy of using Tactical Nukes against US forces if we were to use Precision Guided Munitions against their forces. They have had this policy since the end of the First Gulf War. We have no idea if this is still their policy, or of they can even launch a nuke given the state of their military...

I would also like to point out that the policy is in place because Russia is well aware that their military is NO match for ours, especially their airpower.

he did NOT say that Russia had threatened to Nuke us if we became involved.

[Junkdrawer]

54. He also said they recently war gamed the use of tactical nukes in just such a scenario..

as the Georgia invasion.

And, he said he believes that this threat kept the US out.

[Pierre.Suave]

58. This may shock you, but...

the US also has policies for the use of Nuclear Weapons, and regularly war games scenarios in which they would be used. It doesn't necessarily mean we are going to nuke anyone.

Still, there are no Russian sources saying they would use Nukes if we were to intervene.

Secondly, there is an oil pipeline in contention here, I heard on NPR this morning, BP owns a 30% stake in it. I think it would be foolish to think the Bush admin with Cheney at the helm would not be interested enough to protect their interests if they feel threatened. To attribute logical thinking to the Bush admin is Illogical. They will do whatever is in their best interests regardless of the consequences for the rest of us.

Nuclear weapons may deter a reasonable person from intervening, the bush admin is not reasonable.

[Xolodno]

61. Aaarrrggghhh!!!

We have no idea if this is still their policy, or of they can even launch a nuke given the state of their military...

Someone please bitch slap these people (several times) who say that! State of their Military?!...thus far its looking pretty good, ask the Georgian President.

These are the same type of nut jobs who say we have to strike Iran because they may get the capability to launch nukes...yet when it comes to their largest supplier we act like their in the stone age. Arrogance and stupidity reign supreme.

[Pierre.Suave]

63. ...

So you want to "bitch slap" me several times?

Georgia has a small not very well equipped military. Nothing compared to ours.

It is easy for Russia to pick on the little guy, not so easy for them to pick on us. That is why they have that policy in place. That does not mean however, that they would use it.

:eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

60. oh georgie

what are you (Dick Cheney) up to now

[AuntPatsy]

65. Thats my biggest fear...not knowing the answer to that question.

[Junkdrawer]

66. I think it's the new Bay of Pigs...

We gave Georgia security assurances...

Georgia, thinking the US (and Israel??) has it's back, reasserts itself in South Ossetia...

Russia says "Enough is Enough" and moves in to teach Georgia (and everyone else in the region) a lesson with a disproportional response, including a near hit of the oil pipeline...

In addition, Russia rolls out the SS-21s to warn off the US...

Georgia finds itself with no backing after all...

The NeoCons are now sitting there like a dog whose nose was just slapped, talking big and getting ready to call Russia's bluff...

AND GOD KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT...

[seemslikeadream]

67. ....

24 mins ago: Israelis of Georgian descent take part in a protest outside the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv August 11, 2008. Fighting between Russia and its small, former Soviet neighbour broke out last Thursday when Georgia sent forces to retake South Ossetia, a pro-Russian province that threw off Georgian rule in the 1990s.

[AuntPatsy]

70. We really need to remember as the past few years have proved that those in charge

at present do not care about civilian casulaties abroad as they could care less about our own troops put in harms way, why should they care, they are safe and secure and have the power to ensure others do the actual fighting for their desires to be fufilled.

[Junkdrawer]

69. Transcript of this morning's DemocracyNow

...

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about significance of this, in terms of nuclear warfare in Russia? Do we have anything to fear along those lines?


COL. SAM GARDINER: Absolutely. Let me just say that if you were to rate how serious the strategic situations have been in the past few years, this would be above Iraq, this would be above Afghanistan, and this would be above Iran.


On little notice to Americans, the Russians learned at the end of the first Gulf War that they couldn’t—they didn’t think they could deal with the United States, given the value and the quality of American precision conventional weapons. The Russians put into their doctrine a statement, and have broadcast it very loudly, that if the United States were to use precision conventional weapons against Russian troops, the Russians would be forced to respond with tactical nuclear weapons. They continue to state this. They practice this in their exercise. They’ve even had exercises that very closely paralleled what went on in Ossetia, where there was an independence movement, they intervene conventionally to put down the independence movement, the United States and NATO responds with conventional air strikes, they then respond with tactical nuclear weapons.


It appears to me as if the Russians were preparing themselves to do that in this case. First of all, I think they believe the United States was going to intervene. At a news conference on Sunday, the deputy national security adviser said we have noted that the Russians have introduced two SS-21 medium-range ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia. Now, let me say a little footnote about those. They’re both conventional and nuclear. They have a relatively small conventional warhead, however. So, the military significance, if they were to be conventional, was almost trivial compared to what the Russians could deliver with the aircraft that they were using to strike the Georgians.


I think this was a signal. I think this was an implementation on their part of their doctrine. It clearly appears as if they expected the United States to do what they had practiced in their exercises. In fact, this morning, the Russians had an air defense exercise in the southern part of Russia that borders Georgia in which they—it was practicing shooting down incursion aircraft that were incursion into Russia. They were prepared for the United States to intervene, and I think they were prepared—or at least they were wanting to show the United States that their doctrine of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if the US attacks, was serious, and they needed to take—the United States needs to take Russia very seriously.

....

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/11/up_to_2_000_killed_as

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

72. Use tactical nukes on whom or what or where?

That's kind of an important point. It makes no sense strategically for the Russians to use them in Georgia. They're quite capable of bombing Georgia into the stone age with conventional weapons. And even if the US *did* get involved, they would probably not bomb Russian territory or in any way pose an existential threat to Russia, which would almost certainly be a requirement for the use of any nuclear weapon. The Russians may have threatened this (I don't really know enough about the current Russian leadership to say whether or not they would) but it strikes me as a hollow threat.

[Junkdrawer]

74. I think the Russians remember the Stinger Missiles in Afghanistan....

It looks like they threatened to use tactical nukes in Georgia if a smart-weaponed Georgian army inflicted heavy Russian casualties.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

75. They'd have to be crazy to do so.

This really strikes me as a bluff on their part. It would result in an immediate boycott of their energy and mineral exports by (at least) the whole of Europe and Turkey, and without the oil money flowing in they would be in a world of shit.

[Pierre.Suave]

78. Absolutely crazy

not only for the economic reason, but I am sure Cheney is itching to launch some Nukes...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

81. Nobody is going to be launching nukes.

The West will protest the Russian aggression vigorously, Putin and Medvedev will achieve... well, whatever the hell it is that they're trying to achieve with this stunt, and everybody will go home and get back to the business of not giving two shits about the people of South Somethingorother. Remember Chechnya? Huh? Where? What? Russia could launch a full-scale invasion of Georgia tomorrow and nobody would intervene. For the West to get involved in this conflict would be akin to China getting involved in our invasion of Grenada.

[Pierre.Suave]

83. I did not say they would

But you have to admit, you have to believe that if Cheneys oil interests were at stake and Russia went nuclear, Cheney would obliterate them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

91. No, that's silly.

I don't have to believe that. Because it's nonsense. Any nuclear attack in this situation would result in swift and decisive economic (let alone military) devastation for the perpetrator - Cheney or no Cheney. There are easier ways to make money than global thermonuclear war. Much easier ways.

[Pierre.Suave]

92. You are applying a logical thought process

to Illogical people.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

94. Russians are illogical?

As compared to what? There have been equally stupid conflicts in the Western hemisphere (Grenada, which I mentioned upthread, comes to mind.) I don't recall people freaking out about nuclear weapons in that conflict.

[Pierre.Suave]

95. Cheney, bush et al...

[Junkdrawer]

84. Generals always fight the last war...

Betcha there were Russian Generals in Afghanistan who wanted to tactically nuke the Mujahideen strongholds..

Betcha Gorbachev said "Are you crazy?"...

Putin clearly wants us to think he's no Gorbachev.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

93. So are they re-fighting Afghanistan or Chechnya?

I really have no idea what Putin thinks he's doing, but Russia is back on the superpower map. That much is for certain.

[bemildred]

80. This smells of butt-covering to me.

Explaining why we don't go help our loyal friend in Georgia who got his tit stuck in a wringer.

1.) It is US policy to use tactical nukes for force protection too. (Think Fulda Gap.)

2.) There would have to be an argument about control of the air before JDAMS would become much of an issue against the Russian forces. AFAIK Russia controls the skies, and has from the beginning. I don't see any likely way that anyone is going to do much about that anytime soon. The Russians are surely aware of this. (There is an interesting aside here, it appears the Russians have lost a handful of jets, it would be interesting to know what got them and how. But I don't expect we will be told.)

3.) Georgia is a rather small place to start throwing nukes around, and fallout will annoy people far away. You could hurt something important, and it would make you look really bad, and it would enable the same against you.

4.) His statement #1 is at best an exaggeration, "any use of" does not equate to force threatening use of. In any case it's a bit odd to consider going after aircraft with tactical nukes in MRBMs. So the implication is that he wants to suggest the Russians have threatened to use nukes as terror, anti-city, weapons, but he does not say so, or suggest any reason why they would want to, instead we have a fictive JDAM threat.

5.) Use of nukes requires suitable targets, compact and of sufficient importance. Georgia seems to offer little in that regard.

6.) I don't really see that you need MRBMs either, short range rockets or missiles should work fine as delivery mechanisms in such a small place.

[daleo]

85. That occurred to me too

Perhaps Cheney et al wanted to test the Russians and they used the Georgian president as their catspaw. When Russia struck back hard, Cheney et al said "that's interesting". As for the Georgians, the fate of a lab animal isn't really the concern of the neo-cons. But the nuclear threat makes a good cover story for not having their back.

[bemildred]

86. Well, I was thinking, I said elsewhere, I don't really believe Saakashvili started this on his own.

He's a loyal stooge, near as I can tell, he would not show disrespect in that way. So I gotta at least have some evidence before I consider that he might have done it all on his own.

As far at the theory in the OP, it just doesn't hang together. I would assume the Russians and NATO and Western people are talking all the time, but very politely and without any threats or speculations about future Armageddons or signs of imbalance or emotional upset.

[daleo]

87. With all the U.S. military advisers in Georgia

It's hard to believe that Saakashvili could have kept this a secret from the U.S. Add in all the signals intelligence that the U.S. military and CIA has, and it just seems impossible.

The Bush administration must have had a pretty good idea of what was going to go down. Perhaps they didn't formally sign off on it, but they may have strung Saakashvili along, the way Bush I strung Saddam along before his Kuwait adventure.

It will be interesting to see how the Bushites answer that question, if it is put to them in a press conference. I think the response will be very carefully phrased i.e. they will lie with the truth.

[bemildred]

88. Yes, all good points.

Reminds me of Ms Glaspie and Saddam back in the reign of Bush the Elder. A bit of intentional confusion.

I'm going to be pleasantly shocked if that question is ever asked. Someone ought to ask whether we knew or our intelligence failed again, too, just to listen to the dissembling that follows.

[Junkdrawer]

89. Tit-for-tat regime change?

Russia changes the Georgian government for a more friendly one.

The US changes the Iranian government for a more friendly one.

[bemildred]

90. I don't think so.

Events will prove one of us wrong.

I'm sure Russia would happily see Saakashvili depart for New York, or the Hague, replaced by someone more "cooperative"; but I doubt they will insist on that. A stupid opponent is not to be disposed of lightly, on a whim, he could be useful right where he is. He has certainly been useful this past week.

And I doubt the the present regime in Iran is going anywhere without a much bigger war than this one. I think that both parties were trying to "send a message" in Georgia. We will see who was heard.

Of course the propaganda war is a different matter, we may see Russia resurrected as a boogeyman in some circles, but that is all talk.

And what about China? What if China decided to throw its weight around, what would we do?

Edit: my opinion right now is that Georgia and whomever egged them on thought it was ready, and Russia was ready.

[NNN0LHI]

96. First this is not going to end up being limited to a small battle space

Second the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons is not for anything other than threatening surrounding US military bases who may consider inserting themselves into this. Same goes for any US carrier strike groups who may be moved too close to the area.

Thats what I think.

Don

[bemildred]

97. Hi Don.

:hi:
Quite a show we got going, isn't it?

[Junkdrawer]

99. I think you're right....

We tend to forget that we project power with aircraft carriers.

[theboss]

101. I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe

Putin is bold but not THAT bold, that soon.