Rational Europeans?

Mike23

Mike23

CAGiversary!
It was mentioned in lecture today by one of my IR profs that we could tolerate and respect the "rational" european people even while in the midst of a cold war, but we are scared of "irrational" non-europeans with a less-then-capable WMD program and thus we are to stamp out any threats.

Does anyone else agree with that logic?
 
We respect the 'rational' europeans for two reasons. 1- they're white. 2- they're on near equal footing, technologically and miliarilly.
 
depends on his definition of "rational".

For instance, an IR professor I had over the summer (whom I don't really trust at all) talked about how "rational" just meant that you do what is in the best interest of your country. However, he also refered to Castro as "rational" during the cuban missile crisis. Castro wanted to keep MRBMs on his country so that he could stand up to the US. In which case, I would totally disagree with your professor.

However, if by "rational", they mean reasonable, then I would agree, because I feel that while many initiatives may be for the betterment of the country, they are entirely unreasonable, especially to surrounding countries.
 
Give the racism a break quack, no one believes it but you.

While the Soviets posessed thousands of nuclear warheads, as did we, they had full diplomatic relations with the West. The Soviets were not hell bent on conquest, warfare or domination if the result would have been their destruction. There were checks and balances to the power they had and wielded and a genuine respect if not fear of their would be opponents. Plus, the recent memory of losing 30 million citizens in the Great Patriotic War chilled them to the bone when they realized what a nuclear capable adversary would inflict on their nation.

"Less capable" WMD's is an oxymoron. You're just as dead from a 6 kiloton yield as you are from a 5 megaton yield. Either has the ability to end tens of thousands of lives and in the case of the latter, millions. Hydrogen bombs though are not easy to make, atomic bombs, by comparison, are. Weaponized chemical agents really are not high tech. The technology has been known since the first World War. As a result a few hundred gallons of a chemical or biological agent in a pod on any supersonic capable aircraft may inflict as much of a human toll as a small yield nuclear weapon.

No one ever thought the Soviets would spray West Berlin with such agents, Austria, West Germany, Italy, Turkey or Greece. There is little evidence to support that an Arab state wouldn't unleash such terror or attacks given the fact that they've tried to destroy Israel three times, support directly or indirectly terrorist organizations, have made war on one another and their own people and are in direct conflict with Jews, Christians and Hindus in various regional conflicts.

It's the threat of demonstrated zeal to wage war with neighboring states, prior use of WMD's and lack of political checks and balances that scares people. The analogy is this; do you fear a cop in a Krispy Kreme armed with a 10MM sidearm or the crazy drunk with a broken bottle coming to you and swearing at the ground as he walks. The cop has the better weapon, the drunk is more likely to use his.
 
To answer some question; he didn't have an opinion on the sentiment, it was a dominant one, and by rational I assumed he meant reasonable.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I agree with PAD

Except, less capable nuclear weapons refers to their range, not their yield.[/QUOTE]

Actually they're both. In 1982 the Soviets/Warsaw Pact went absolutely ape shit when Reagan proposed deploying Tomahawk TLAM-N's and Pershing II's in Western Europe. Though the range and destructive capability of ICBM's like the Minuteman III, MX or Trident systems was far greater the Tomahawk would give zero warning about a nuclear strike and a Pershing II would provide about 8-12 minutes of warning. A traditional 3 stage ICBM with ranges >5,000 miles will give you a half hour of heads up time to evacuate key personnel below ground, get them airborne and plan your response.

It was that kind of threat that got the USSR back to the negotiating table for arms control and led to the Reykjavik Conference and the elimination of IRBM's.

There is no way in hell any tactic of the sort would bring Iran, as an example, to a negotiating table. IRBM's are all they posses and modern military planning makes an old fashioned gravity bomb drop from a plane much less reliable with tactical aircraft in the MiG or SU family which is the primary components of the Iranian air force.

This is one thing that makes them a greater threat. They can't and won't negotiate their most viable military, political and strategic threat. If I were them I wouldn't either. There's so much bad blood between the two sides and they do not believe, mistakenly, that we're not in the MAD business anymore.
 
[quote name='Mike23']by rational I assumed he meant reasonable.[/QUOTE]

This is awfully vague. I'm still stuck on the definition of "rational" in the context of this discussion.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yeah, the Europeans are white.[/QUOTE]

Shock, a one-sentence reply from Quackzilla blaming everything on racism! What's next, a PAD "religion of peace" update?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Shock, a one-sentence reply from Quackzilla blaming everything on racism! What's next, a PAD "religion of peace" update?[/QUOTE]

Hey - or maybe a holier-then-thou elprincipe "All of those dirty lying liberals would support banning abortion and banning organic foods if they were honest with themselves" thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top