I never anticipated that Katrina vanden Heuvel would be the voice of reason on U. S.-Russian relations but that’s what appears to be the case. From her Washington Post column:
Please. Bots are not bombs. Facebook ads are not the equivalent of planes flying into the World Trade Center. The casualties of Russian interference in our election are a far remove from the thousands lost during the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or at Pearl Harbor. The efforts detailed in the indictment — $100,000 in Facebook ads, more than one-half of which was spent after the election plus some scantly attended rallies — do not constitute a coup d’état. With Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania vital to Trump’s electoral college victory, a Senate hearing reported the total amount spent on Facebook targeting Wisconsin was “a mere $1,979; all but $54 was spent prior to the completion of the primary. . . . The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania was even smaller.†According to the indictment, the supposedly sophisticated operation only learned in June 2016 that it should focus its activities “on purple states like Colorado, Virginia & Florida.â€
There is no more important bilateral relationship in the world than that between the U. S. and Russia. Open conflict between our two countries could end the world. A good start in mending it would be for us to stop supporting Al Qaeda in Syria in our crusade to oust Assad. Of the available alternatives that is the worse. We could also stop creating and arming anti-Russian regimes on Russia’s borders, particularly when they are literally Nazis.
For their part the Russians might want to stop hacking into our election apparatus. I realize that we’ve interfered with scores of elections around the world including Russia’s. That’s no excuse for doing it to us.
But the hysteria that’s being fomented is dangerous.
A lot of over reaction. Of course, there is a lot more room for that when there is a lack of leadership. When we first heard about this in 2016 there was some skepticism about it. However, we now have, I think, a lot more assurance that it was real, and we still have no response. I think that if there was a measured and appropriate response a lot of this would go away.
Steve
Yes, and I think the Russians are laughing at us.
I have a lot of doubt about the ability of the US and/or Russia to destroy the world, but I am willing to test it. Of course, a few cow farts can destroy the world, so I guess anything is possible.
The Russians are the 80 lb bear in the room, and they are not even the Grizzly kind. Except for nukes, they have little offensive capability. Their economy is puny. Their biggest income source (oil) is being battered by the shale type.
Now that Russia has unstoppable nukes, I wonder how far the anti-Russia crowd is willing to go. Personally, I am willing to test their unstoppable nukes, but then, I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
An overstatement. With or without nuclear weapons Russia is a regional superpower. Theirs is the second-most-capable military in the world after our own.
Russia and the U. S. each have about 2,000 nuclear warheads plus about 2,000 in retirement. Each of the 2,000 would do a pretty fair job on a city. Very large cities might require multiple strikes to completely level them.
Detonating just 100 of them has been calculated as being enough to destroy the ozone layer temporarily which might itself render the world unhabitable for a time. The fallout from those detonations would pose additional hazards. I’m confident that detonating 4,000 nuclear warheads would be enough to destroy the world by any practical definition.
A number of them will fail at launch. A number will not explode. A number will not hit their target. If there is a design flaw, that number might be high.
One positive is that the nuclear winter will solve AGW in a few minutes. Another is that Nagasaki and Hiroshima seem to be thriving, and it could be a great infrastructure improvement opportunity for the US.