Sanctions on Russia

Lisa Jackson7 said:"Quote:"

Look, I’m not interested in playing judge or jury here—I just want the damn problem solved. Even Germany wasn't exactly left to its own devices after World War II, since, you know, "who actually forced Hitler to invade his neighbors?"
Look, Germans weren't exactly everyone's favorite back then—just like they aren't today—but that's really the heart of the issue. What kind of world order are we actually looking for? Seriously.

Some people are out here praying for a Cold War reboot—they actually want to go back to playing games with Putin and China like we're still in that "golden age" of globalization... honestly? I’m just over here hoping for some actual prosperity and a world that isn't run by autocrats.
Sounds like a damn fairy tale—but long-term? Not a chance. Look, if we don't build a world like that—seriously—Western political systems won't even stand a chance at surviving.... there isn't even a wall high enough to keep them out.

"Quote:"

Spot on. Everything said here is 100% facts. Some people actually claim that if the US had just let Ukraine into NATO back around 2000, we wouldn't be dealing with this whole mess today. Or what—she shouldn't have handed over her nukes?

Even if we avoided the War entirely—which wouldn't be enough, by the way—Ukraine still needs a path toward integrating into Europe through some kind of "light EU" setup. And honestly? Russia should probably follow suit at its own pace.

"Quote"

That's exactly why the sanctions have to be this brutal—no question about it. Are they actually trying to trigger change from within? — seriously, what a joke.

It’s hard to stay the same—really tough—when things start getting unstable and we're looking at a potential coup or whatever... you gotta throw in a "carrot" too... just be careful and make sure there are clear terms in place.

I suspect the West won't be handing out any carrots to Russia for quite some time after this.
As for the rest, I agree...

So the West is to blame because they didn't just swoop into Russia back in the 90s and
...colonize the place to fit their own image—reforming the military and turning every single inefficient, money-losing state entity into a streamlined, competent business
...clearing out all the redundant KGB types from every factory and collective farm overnight while retraining them all
...teaching the brand-new entrepreneurs that they actually had competition now and that they had to deal with real risks for once
...and if they kept churning out junk, they’d actually go bankrupt
...teaching bureaucrats—who previously treated accounting like an art form for hiding losses and faking growth—that they now had to cut costs to boost productivity without firing the massive surplus of workers who were only there to keep unemployment numbers low
...handling privatization perfectly by selling off state assets to the most honest and capable people rather than the slickest crooks

And all this while living in a democracy where the legislative and executive branches flip-flop, making deep, unpopular economic reforms nearly impossible. Once the transition got painful—which was inevitable—the Communist Party held sway over the Duma and, by extension, the Federal Reserve. They kept pushing socialist policies and sabotaging the core parts of "shock therapy" by insisting on fixing everything by printing more and more money—even while dealing with the hyperinflation of 1992! (Note: during that hyperinflationary mess, Russia was basically liquidating its weapons and ammo to anyone with a pulse).

How do you pivot an economy and a political system that's hardwired for Cold War realities and slash defense spending that was hitting 15% of the budget?
...where do those workers go?
...how do you take that specialized experience and move it into the civilian sector?
...how do you replace the lost post-Soviet markets that those massive, clunky industrial giants relied on?
...and how do you do any of that without causing mass unemployment and impoverishing the older, unskilled, and retired population?
...how do you build a functional, sustainable healthcare and social safety net overnight? Up until then, housing, health, and pensions were all tied to the companies themselves.
...who picks up those bills without going broke or leaving retirees completely destitute? How?

And how do you take a military force that’s busy growing potatoes just to feed a bloated army and maintain crumbling infrastructure—a force that's politically and militarily incompatible with the West—and somehow fold them into NATO?

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Grace Phillips25 said:But what if it didn't work because there just wasn't any fertile ground for it (democracy in Russia) to begin with???

That seems way more likely to me. Which is why I think sanctions might just end up being totally useless. It really comes down to a different national mindset. They’d rather eat the land, celebrate the land, and expand the land—or at least they *think* they're expanding it...

🙂

I had gone completely cold turkey on this forum. Total burnout, I guess. I actually asked to be stripped of my mod duties and requested a long-term ban. But since COVID grounded all the planes and I managed to switch jobs to something with less stress and more chaos—plus WFH now—I figured I might as well come back and mess around with you guys in the "old" homeland again! 😁 So, here goes nothing until the next ban! 😬 Greetings from Miami.

If it weren't for great leaders, these kinds of nations wouldn't even exist in the first place. Russia wouldn't even exist anymore; everything would just splinter into a mess of various clans and factions facing unprecedented poverty. It seems to me they realize this too, and they aren't exactly rushing toward democracy. The sanctions are harsh, sure. But they're still probably a better option than what would await them if the whole thing collapsed.

Anyway, I'm just philosophizing so I don't seem completely off-topic while I say hi to analogbear5 😍 it's truly incredible how much some unknown people behind pixels can cheer us up when we see them after such a long time. Even I wasn't particularly excited about returning to the forum, and I'm not even sure why I decided to come back, but here I am—my handle and color are still the same 🤣 I was actually wondering the other day what happened to my neighbor to the south! Glad to hear everything is okay! Greetings to Miami, tell Lowry I said hi over at the Heat.😬

Lisa Jackson7 said:The whole idea of "choosing" someone in politics is messy—it could mean anything from a subtle nudge to, say, giving Yeltsin a phone call and telling him to nominate Putin as his successor.

Besides, calling Yeltsin a democrat is a stretch at best. Not after that constitutional crisis back in '93, and definitely not after those "fair" elections in '96 where he probably swiped the win right from the Communist candidate, Zyuganov.
He had the oligarchs backing him, and even his buddy Bill Clinton gave him a hand. 😉

Does everything I just said mean I'm rooting for Zyuganov?
Not even close. I’m just suggesting—since you claim to be so "open-minded"—that you go read some of Anders Aslund's stuff on Russia in the 90s. It's hard to call him a "Putin lover."

You won't hear me arguing that there were viable alternatives in 1990s Russia that the West could have championed, which would have included Yeltsin. A Marshall Plan or anything of that magnitude requires a level of social control far beyond what the West—in my estimation—could theoretically exert in Russia at that time. Could things have gone better? Undeniably, though the real question is to what extent and by what means.

Lisa Jackson7 said:There’s no way to know for sure ahead of time—if you ask me, the real question is whether there's even any genuine international interest in promoting democracy through peaceful means, rather than the mess we saw in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Obviously, any response to those kinds of pushes has to come from a critical mass of motivated groups within the target country itself.

The fact is, when it came to building up democratic institutions and a solid civic political culture in the defeated Axis powers after World War II, having the winning anti-fascist coalition holding all the power levers definitely helped things along.

Is that an absolute prerequisite for success? Who knows—I hope it isn't and that there are other ways to make it work.
And is having a competing superpower around—like the USSR back then—a necessity? Again, I have no clue.

It’s not my place to claim that setting up even somewhat democratic or liberal regimes in Russia or China is easy—honestly, looking at their history, it might not even be possible anytime soon... the whole timeline proves it.

All I know is that it's worth a shot.
The payoff would be finally moving away from the constant threat of war.

I agree with everyone here. It is worth trying, but we have to remain grounded—both regarding our expectations of success and how we interpret shifting circumstances. Being too optimistic about the former often leads to overestimating the latter, largely due to the sunk cost fallacy.

From what I can see, the West has a pretty dismal track record on both counts, unless... they happen to hold the levers of power.

And sometimes even when they do. (Think Afghanistan, or Iraq—though one might view the latter with a bit more cautious optimism.)

It is also entirely possible that we are viewing the Marshall Plan through rose-colored glasses, when the reality on the ground was likely far messier.

Peter Doyle2 said:If it weren't for great leaders, these kinds of nations wouldn't even exist in the first place. Russia wouldn't even exist anymore; everything would just splinter into a mess of various clans and factions facing unprecedented poverty. It seems to me they realize this too, and they aren't exactly rushing toward democracy. The sanctions are harsh, sure. But they're still probably a better option than what would await them if the whole thing collapsed.

Anyway, I'm just philosophizing so I don't seem completely off-topic while I say hi to analogbear5 😍 it's truly incredible how much some unknown people behind pixels can cheer us up when we see them after such a long time. Even I wasn't particularly excited about returning to the forum, and I'm not even sure why I decided to come back, but here I am—my handle and color are still the same 🤣 I was actually wondering the other day what happened to my neighbor to the south! Glad to hear everything is okay! Greetings to Miami, tell Lowry I said hi over at the Heat.😬

Hey right back at you, my friend from way up North! Great to see you again. We'll look after the injured Lowry; the Heat are looking solid this year, we just need to get through these guys from Philadelphia and then we'll see... plus the Florida Panthers are killing it this season, so our tropical hockey guys are out there swinging those Canadian sticks like crazy against everyone up North... Anyway, let me get back to the topic before Cuka and the mods start giving us grief...

No matter how many people—even here in the US—wish Russia and the Russians would just vanish tomorrow, there will always be people who feel that way. Sanctions might take down Putin, but they aren't going to erase the Russian idea or their specific way of seeing their society. I don't honestly believe that removing Putin himself will change anything significant. Did sanctions really change much in Iran, Iraq, etc.? And will they ever truly change things in China? Who knows, I don't have a crystal ball, but what does history teach us? These are probably the toughest sanctions ever slapped on, so we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens...

The whole debate about Democracy—its pros and its cons—is more suited for DZ or Philosophy. Maybe that's where the conversation should stay. I haven't posted over there in a while...

What actually worries me about all of this, as a lifelong peace lover, is the sheer amount of hate this war is fueling via social media—and Putin is largely responsible for that, though obviously not alone. Unfortunately, hating Russians, Ukrainians, or anyone who doesn't think exactly like us has become "in fashion."

We're already in this war, even if we like to pretend we aren't. I just pray that World War III stays far away from all of us.

I'm pretty sure you guys know private messaging exists. Get a room. 😉

Rachel Richardson said:The US has its own calculations to make—the West is certainly no saint—but nobody forced Hitler or Putin to invade neighboring nations...

Exactly right.
It’s also worth noting that if Ukraine had been brought into NATO around 2000, we might not be facing this war today.
Or consider what happened when they didn't hand over their nuclear weapons.

Realistically, no.

That is precisely why the sanctions can be so severe.
Are they intended to trigger internal change?

What do you think would happen to those weapons in a scenario where a mob forcibly removes a democratically elected president?

We need to find the sweet spot before we swing too far toward helping too much or not enough.

The long-held assumption was that prosperity and democracy were inseparable—that opening up an economy would inevitably pave the way for political freedom. It turns out it’s not that simple. Instead, we ended up with dictatorships that are both wealthier and better armed. Look at China: they played the long game, developed their economy, and then doubled down on a version of authoritarianism even more intense than anything under Mao Zedong. Sure, showing their true colors might lead to economic stagnation in the long run, but that could also trigger aggressive military moves. Fortunately, Russia hasn't managed to build a real economy, which makes isolating them much easier.

Dealing with nation-states feels a lot like dealing with psychiatry. You can offer help if someone actually wants it, or you can perform a forced hospitalization if they're too unstable to care for themselves (think of the occupation of Germany or Japan). Even then, for any long-term progress to stick, there has to be some internal desire for change.

Then you have the ones who still think they're perfect and everyone else is the problem. They only cooperate just long enough to snag some sick leave or score cheap psychoactive drugs to sell on the street.
There's no helping those people.

On the flip side, you have outliers like Somaliland. Despite being unrecognized and lacking major economic partnerships, they maintain a more functional democracy than some recognized entities that receive massive amounts of foreign aid and influence (though that doesn't mean things aren't messy or that clan identity isn't a factor).

Since economic cooperation hasn't proven to be a reliable driver for reform, I'm stuck wondering which approach is better: providing aid and potentially fueling an adversary, or isolating and impoverishing them until a strong, visionary internal movement emerges to build something new.

The C-section crowd from big tech corporations and politicians tend to view economic relations through a completely different lens. Honestly, Tim Cook seems to have much better rapport with his friends in China than Biden does.

We’ll only be able to economically isolate China once we move away from being such a consumerist society—until then, there really isn't an alternative. If anyone actually thinks India is going to make any significant strides in the next ten years, they are in for a massive disappointment; that country is riddled with corruption, and the level of brain drain they're dealing with is just devastating.

On top of that, India seems to be following Orban’s lead, if not Putin's footprint.

Fortunately, despite all the fascist-leaning extreme right-wing pressure and political dominance, the electoral system generally functions well enough. Unlike Russia, they had enough time to become truly established. That said, nothing is invincible in the end, and the rise of clerical fascism—which is likely at its strongest today outside of Islamist nations—is definitely cause for concern.

As for the brain drain, I’m not entirely sure how bad the situation really is. Plenty of people are leaving, sure, but there’s also this massive societal emphasis on STEM. Back in the Nehru era, policy put a huge premium on higher education, which is why they stand much better here than in lower tiers. Compared to China, that's actually one of the hurdles in developing industry and a skilled basic workforce. On the flip side, they've pushed hard to develop higher ed, and in this society, doctors and engineers are ranked ten levels above everything else; every parent's dream is to have a kid in one of those fields.
So, they’re dealing with an exodus, but probably a hyper-production phase too.

At the same time, as the economy has strengthened, we're seeing hints of a reversal. Some emigrants, or even their children, have started heading back to India to find opportunities in a fresh, promising market. It’s far from a total trend reversal, but it says something.

Corruption is obviously a nasty issue.
Beyond that, the biggest headache might actually be the deficit in primary education rather than the brain drain, along with the sheer complexity of a society split by hundreds of local languages, scripts, religions, castes, and clans. While the religious right-wingers currently dominating politics and public life try to build an orthodox Hindu platform to force homogenization, I’m skeptical about how successful that can be long-term in a country that is arguably the largest melting pot in planetary history within a single state identity. Americans are just little kittens compared to this melting pot. Though, it's certainly working for them in terms of staying in power.

Still, by pure scale—both population and economy—they serve as a buffer zone for China, despite all the flaws.

Not that it's the main topic, though 🤣

rustywalker82 said:So, where’s the plan to ramp up production to make up for it?

Hitting them with oil sanctions without having a backup plan to boost supply means prices are gonna spike. That basically turns into direct funding for the genocide happening over in Yemen.
You can already smell the excuses coming once the atrocities in the Middle East keep rolling. It'll be some nonsense like, "Oh, sorry, we had no idea." 😁

Everyone's acting all tough suddenly. So what? 🙂
Just a quick reality check on how the US reacts whenever oil and gas prices drop and threaten their own economy. They start threatening Riyadh with sanctions... that's exactly how they play it when energy prices get too low...

- April 09, 2020
Trump, who has said U.S. output was already falling due to low prices, warned Riyadh it could face sanctions and tariffs on its oil if it did not cut enough to help the U.S. oil industry, whose higher costs have left it struggling with low prices
If Saudi Arabia failed to rein in output, U.S. senators called on the White House to impose sanctions on Riyadh, pull out U.S. troops from the kingdom and impose import tariffs on Saudi oil.

https://www.voanews.com/a/economy-bu...s/6187297.html

Looks like things aren't quite as bleak for Orban and his crew as most people seem to think.

Maybe they're actually following the old rule about not feeding the trolls for once.

Quote : Russia's Rosneft sold 700,000 tonnes of Urals oil loading fra Baltic ports of Primorsk and Ust-Lug in May to Indian Oil Corp

Speaking of the Indians, they just picked up 700k tonnes of Ural from Rosneft. 🤣

Some guy claiming he's not a troll says he's still bingeing that series called "when the cat has licked its paws"🤣

Carl Lee27 said:The terminal on Krk is running overtime. Honestly, would anyone even expect the intelligence agencies to be vetting every single person who was out there protesting so aggressively against it? It’s just not realistic to ask for that level of scrutiny.
https://twitter.com/ASabadus/status/...sMFUzerMA&s=19

rustywalker82 said:Here are two links, mostly for those fake intellectuals hiding out in their little holes, thinking they can stay anonymous. 😁

The energy landscape is shifting again, and honestly, it’s getting pretty wild to follow. There’s a lot of noise right now about the future of gas supply and how we're going to stay powered up without relying on old-school, problematic sources. I was reading up on the latest moves regarding the LNG terminal on Kodiak, and it’s clear that the stakes couldn't be higher. We’re looking at a massive pivot in how the US handles energy security. For years, everyone was worried about being held hostage by foreign pipelines, but now that we've ramped up our own LNG capabilities, the whole dynamic has changed. It's not just about having the fuel; it's about who controls the tap. It reminds me of a few years back when I was working a gig out near Houston. Everyone was talking about "energy independence" like it was some holy grail, but seeing the actual infrastructure—the massive tankers, the specialized terminals—you realize it's a heavy lift. It's not just flipping a switch. You need the tech, the ports, and the political will to keep it moving. Right now, there's this tension between those pushing for more green initiatives and the folks who realize we still need reliable gas to keep the lights on and the factories running. It’s a delicate balance. If we lean too hard into one side without securing the other, we’re asking for trouble. The pushback against certain LNG projects is growing, which adds another layer of complexity to an already messy situation. At the end of the day, whether you're pro-environment or pro-industry, we all want the same thing: stability. No one wants their heating bill to double because of a geopolitical hiccup halfway across the world. We're basically rebuilding the foundation of American energy in real-time, and it's definitely not going to be a smooth ride.
Posted: July 4, 2013
Washington, D.C. — The US is really eyeing that land-based LNG terminal over on Kodiak, hoping to hit a capacity of about 6 billion cubic meters a year..

I just caught wind of this latest drama regarding the LNG terminal situation, and honestly, it’s getting old. You see these massive debates popping up all over the news lately about energy security and whether we're actually making the right moves to stay independent. It feels like every time we get close to securing our own supply through projects like the one on Kodiak, someone jumps out of the woodwork to scream "environmental crisis." It’s a classic tug-of-war. On one hand, you've got the urgent need to stop relying on Russian gas—which we all know is a recipe for disaster given how Putin plays the game—and on the other, you have these intense anti-LNG groups who think any major infrastructure project is an attack on the planet. I remember back when I was working construction near a major refinery out in Texas, we used to talk about this constantly. People living nearby were always split. Half the town relied on those jobs and that stability, while the other half was terrified of any change to the status quo. It's that same tension playing out on a national level now. The government is trying to walk this tightrope, balancing the need for energy autonomy with the pressure from Green Action America and similar groups. But let's be real: if we don't have reliable access to LNG, we're basically leaving the lights on at the mercy of whoever holds the valve. It's not just about politics; it's about keeping the heat running in the middle of a blizzard in Chicago or Denver. We can't afford to be indecisive when the stakes are this high.
Posted: January 5, 2016
The US is really leaning on us to go with a floating LNG terminal instead of building one on land. It feels like they're pushing their own agenda here, trying to steer our energy infrastructure toward whatever suits them best rather than what actually makes sense for our local needs.
The pressure from the US really hit its peak when Joe Biden made his way to Washington, D.C.

So, we went ahead and built that floating unit, but it’s only got about half the capacity we originally talked about.
A Green...

The whole push against LNG projects around here is getting intense, and honestly, it’s about time we had this conversation out in the open. We're seeing this massive surge in fossil fuel infrastructure being fast-tracked under the guise of "energy security," but if you look closer, it feels like we're just swapping one dependency for another. It’s basically the same old game played with different players. I was chatting with a buddy of mine who works in logistics down in Houston, and he was telling me how these massive terminal expansions are being treated like they're some kind of silver bullet. But let's be real—building out huge fleets of LNG tankers isn't exactly a "Green" move. It’s a massive bet on gas that keeps us tethered to volatile global markets and leaves us vulnerable to whoever controls the supply lines. The activists fighting this aren't just being difficult for the sake of it. They’re pointing out that while we claim to be transitioning to renewables, we're actually doubling down on carbon-heavy infrastructure that will be locked in for decades. It’s like buying a gas-guzzling SUV right when everyone is moving toward EVs; it feels outdated before the concrete even dries. We need to stop treating these temporary fixes like permanent solutions. If we want actual energy independence and a way to hit our climate goals, we have to focus on the stuff that actually lasts—like wind, solar, and a modernized grid—rather than pouring billions into more pipelines and regasification plants. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
The whole "Anti-LNG" campaign is basically trying to kill the plan to build that massive LNG terminal out on Kodiak Island—and they're coming after both the floating setup and the land-based one. It’s being spearheaded by Green Action USA.

- The Russian Druzhba-Adria pipeline is basically like putting an oil noose around the neck of the entire Atlantic coast, not just one country. Green Action USA

It looks like the Canadians are pushing for a five-year exemption from the embargo. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other countries decide to jump on board with that too.
https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status...FyK0DGOOQ&s=19

The main thing is for the Russians to realize they’re pushing away perfectly good customers—or rather, great buyers.
So really, the ball is in their court, not Europe's. (Invest in war and win)

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. It's just a single word without any context, so I have nothing to work with. If you want me to rewrite something, give me the full text and I'll get to it. kaže:
There’s just no way to know for sure ahead of time. To me, the real question isn't about intelligence or foresight; it's whether there is any genuine, sincere interest on the global stage to actually promote democracy—and I don't mean the messy, destabilizing kind of "promotion" we saw play out in places like Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. I'm talking about doing it through peaceful, constructive means.

Look, at the end of the day, if you want to see any real change from those kinds of provocations, you can't just sit around waiting for it to happen. You need a response that comes directly from a critical mass of people within the target country—people who aren't just watching from the sidelines, but are actually organized, genuinely interested, and willing to push back. It’s about building enough momentum through various dedicated groups on the ground to make sure those incentives don't just slide by unnoticed.

The reality of the situation is, once the cat has licked its paws... Building a real democracy isn't just about checking boxes on a ballot or setting up some fancy government building; it’s about actually successfully cultivating democratic institutions and a genuine culture of civic engagement. It's one thing to have the framework on paper, but it's an entirely different beast to foster a society where people actually understand their role and respect the rules of the game. You can't just manufacture political maturity overnight—it takes time, grit, and a shared commitment to the principles that keep a nation from sliding into chaos.It’s almost certain that what helped those defeated Axis powers after World War II was the fact that... You have to look at how much leverage the winning powers of the anti-fascist coalition actually managed to grab for themselves. It wasn't just about winning the fight; it was about who walked away holding all the strings and controlling the levers of power once the dust finally settled.

Is that really an absolute prerequisite for success? Honestly, I hope to God it isn't, because if it is, we might need to start looking for a different way to play the game entirely.

Is there actually any real necessity for the existence of a competing superpower to provide that kind of motivation? Back in the day, having the USSR around certainly did the trick, but I don't know. It’s one of those things that makes you wonder if we only move forward when someone is breathing down our necks.

I’m not even going to try to argue that establishing anything resembling a democratic or liberal regime in Russia or China is some simple task. In fact, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's even possible in our lifetime. If you actually take a moment to look at the sheer weight of history in those two nations, it becomes pretty obvious that we're looking at a monumental, perhaps insurmountable, uphill battle.

I’m just saying, it's worth a shot.

If we actually managed to steer ourselves away from the constant threat of war for good, that would be the real prize.

The whole idea that ethnonationalist states can actually function as stable democracies is a complete fantasy. If you look at history, those kinds of setups are basically ticking time bombs for democratic stability. When a country defines itself by a single ethnic identity, it inherently creates an "us versus them" dynamic that eventually poisons the well of political discourse. You end up with a system where anyone who doesn't fit that specific mold is treated like a second-class citizen, which is the literal antithesis of what a healthy democracy is supposed to be. It’s a recipe for exclusion and resentment, and honestly, it makes the entire foundation of governance incredibly fragile.

Europe only stays even remotely stable because they’re being kept on a tight leash by the Americans.

Treating Russia as if it were some kind of functioning democracy is an incredibly dangerous gamble. It’s like trying to build a skyscraper on top of a sinkhole; you might get a few stories up, but you're fundamentally ignoring the fact that the entire foundation is hollowed out and ready to collapse at any second. When you deal with a regime that operates under those kinds of pretenses, you aren't engaging with a stable political system—you're just playing a high-stakes game of chicken with a massive, unpredictable void.

Dana Robinson4 said:What do you think would happen to those weapons in a scenario where a mob forcibly removes a democratically elected president?

It’s all Kremlin fiction, so there’s really no point in bothering ourselves with hypothetical houses of cards built out of nothing but fog.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Not a thing.

Whether we are talking about the Soviet Union or even modern-day Russia, wouldn't you agree that when mobs take over and swap out leaders, nobody ever dares to touch the nukes? So, why on earth would things be any different in Ukraine? 🤔

Does that mean there aren't any real deterrents against a bomb from Egypt, Venezuela, or the Congo?