3 ms·

The US tapped wires 50 years ago so it's ok to target Argentine cables for cutting today? An alternative theory: Putin his driving his people into poverty and

The US tapped wires 50 years ago so it's ok to target Argentine cables for cutting today? An alternative theory: Putin his driving his people into poverty and leading them to unnecessary and catastrophic conflict with the west to maintain his popularity.

eesmith 9y ago
It feels like you believe that I only mentioned one example, from 50 years ago, that that's all the US did. To the contrary, this article even points out "British and American intelligence agencies have eavesdropped on fiber optic cables". Do you think the US does not now tap undersea cables? If so, when did we stop? Why aren't we calling for an international ban on the tapping and deliberate cutting of undersea cables? What does it mean "to target" a cable for cutting? I mean, the US has certainly mapped out the cables and almost certainly visited them by sub to tap them. What more does the US need to do before we can say those cables are targeted by the US? And why do we think Russia has gone beyond the stage where the US has been for decades? Plus, this article gave no real reason for why Russia would want to cut the cables. It seems the best case situation for them is to "create an environment of misinformation and distrust". Look at the effects of the 2008 submarine cable disruptions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruptio... . They weren't all that disruptive. So the benefits of cutting the cable don't seem that high. It's easier to think that Russia would want to tap the cables (like the US does), and therefore not want to cut the cable, because it would mean cutting off an information source. While on the other hand, if you're in the military (sorry, "military-industrial complex"), and want to get more funding, then the best way to do it is to present the worst-case movie scenario of what a potential enemy might do. An alternative theory: the US wants to ensure that there are no challengers to its hegemony, and by threat of military force hypocritically condemns actions which it itself has no qualms doing. Why else did we triple the effective power of our nuclear arsenal through 'super-fuze', then turn around and complain when Russia responds with something like the Sarmat ICBM - exactly as one might predict from the MAD doctrine?
- TomMckenny 9y ago
  Today's comically poorly run US is spinning up huge pork barrel spending on pointless weapons while the Russians have a dictator who thrives on stories of imminent danger. It's quite symbiotic. Thus the super-fuze vs Sarmat issue. It is not because Putin thinks the current US administration is going to fling nukes at him at any second. Similarly, if the US has an administration so biddable that you can sail into Chesapeake bay and poke around with impunity, why not do so? It will sure look good in Russia when you're caught. And just as with this rather mild news story, I'm sure there is some tu quoque justification for the invasion of Ukraine and the poisoning of Sergei Skripal that we would hear should those stories get posted. So regrettably, as long as the Russians have Putin they will get poorer every day and to distract them we all will edge closer to another cold war. If the US and UK dropped of the planet tomorrow then he would rail against Germany and the Baltic States instead.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I do not share your belief that the US, which is currently involved in numerous wars, will never use its "pointless weapons." Nixon, for example, thought about nuking Vietnam: > We’re going to do it. I’m going to destroy the goddamn country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapons if necessary. It isn’t necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, what shows you the extent to which I’m willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapons. Nixon: I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that ready? Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much. Nixon: A nuclear bomb, does that bother you?… I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ’s sake! The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care. Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher. I see no reason to believe that the US in the future will not ever make that step. The US "huge pork barrel spending" also make us poorer every day. My complaint here is to point out the hypocrisy and weakness of US claims, not the use of that hypocrisy to justify Russian behavior.

eesmith 9y ago

It feels like you believe that I only mentioned one example, from 50 years ago, that that's all the US did. To the contrary, this article even points out "British and American intelligence agencies have eavesdropped on fiber optic cables". Do you think the US does not now tap undersea cables? If so, when did we stop? Why aren't we calling for an international ban on the tapping and deliberate cutting of undersea cables? What does it mean "to target" a cable for cutting? I mean, the US has certainly mapped out the cables and almost certainly visited them by sub to tap them. What more does the US need to do before we can say those cables are targeted by the US? And why do we think Russia has gone beyond the stage where the US has been for decades? Plus, this article gave no real reason for why Russia would want to cut the cables. It seems the best case situation for them is to "create an environment of misinformation and distrust". Look at the effects of the 2008 submarine cable disruptions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruptio... . They weren't all that disruptive. So the benefits of cutting the cable don't seem that high. It's easier to think that Russia would want to tap the cables (like the US does), and therefore not want to cut the cable, because it would mean cutting off an information source. While on the other hand, if you're in the military (sorry, "military-industrial complex"), and want to get more funding, then the best way to do it is to present the worst-case movie scenario of what a potential enemy might do. An alternative theory: the US wants to ensure that there are no challengers to its hegemony, and by threat of military force hypocritically condemns actions which it itself has no qualms doing. Why else did we triple the effective power of our nuclear arsenal through 'super-fuze', then turn around and complain when Russia responds with something like the Sarmat ICBM - exactly as one might predict from the MAD doctrine?

TomMckenny 9y ago
Today's comically poorly run US is spinning up huge pork barrel spending on pointless weapons while the Russians have a dictator who thrives on stories of imminent danger. It's quite symbiotic. Thus the super-fuze vs Sarmat issue. It is not because Putin thinks the current US administration is going to fling nukes at him at any second. Similarly, if the US has an administration so biddable that you can sail into Chesapeake bay and poke around with impunity, why not do so? It will sure look good in Russia when you're caught. And just as with this rather mild news story, I'm sure there is some tu quoque justification for the invasion of Ukraine and the poisoning of Sergei Skripal that we would hear should those stories get posted. So regrettably, as long as the Russians have Putin they will get poorer every day and to distract them we all will edge closer to another cold war. If the US and UK dropped of the planet tomorrow then he would rail against Germany and the Baltic States instead.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I do not share your belief that the US, which is currently involved in numerous wars, will never use its "pointless weapons." Nixon, for example, thought about nuking Vietnam: > We’re going to do it. I’m going to destroy the goddamn country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapons if necessary. It isn’t necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, what shows you the extent to which I’m willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapons. Nixon: I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that ready? Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much. Nixon: A nuclear bomb, does that bother you?… I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ’s sake! The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care. Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher. I see no reason to believe that the US in the future will not ever make that step. The US "huge pork barrel spending" also make us poorer every day. My complaint here is to point out the hypocrisy and weakness of US claims, not the use of that hypocrisy to justify Russian behavior.