It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

US Preparing For War With Russia? 300 Marines Deployed To Norway Near Russian Border

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: thesungod


Why can't Marines be deployed with missile launchers...some of them nuclear capable? It seems that a lot of people hear the word MARINES and it conjures up what they see in Iwo Jima reenactment movies.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It doesn't matter. Three hundred Marines, against tank divisions, and the thousands of forces that Russia could bring to bear in the region aren't going to last long, no matter how they're armed. Yes, they're great fighters, but when you're talking about 300 of them, against armor, air, artillery, and infantry, they're still not going to be able to do a lot.


Now, if they included a Chuck Norris sighting as number 301, we might actually have something here.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Because they are sending a mountaineering group. Mountains are not conducive to vehicles. Mountaineering units are infantry.

I'm actually advanced summer certified by the Army Mountain Warfare School. Even did the IAMMS course in Switzerland at a international competition. The French Foreign Legion Mountain unit kicked our # in that one.

I know of no man portable nuclear capable launcher.
edit on 26-10-2016 by thesungod because: spelling



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't you ever see the movie 300?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

Why is everyone so concerned with the number 300? My belief is that it's the deployment of Marines in Norway that matters. Repeating what I wrote earlier:

The way I see that is that now that there's an agreement between Norway and the U.S. for some Marines to be deployed in Norway, the number could be increased probably over a phone call (I may be exaggerating but I hope that gets the idea across).

The difficulty was surely agreeing to the terms of the deployment. Once that's out of the way, the number could go from 300 to 10,000 or more essentially overnight in my opinion. That's why I believe this is such a big deal.

If you read between the lines, I believe that kind of thing is what Russia is concerned about:


“Taking into account multiple statements made by Norwegian officials about the absence of threat from Russia to Norway, we would like to understand why Norway is so much willing to increase its military potential, in particular through the stationing of American forces in Vaernes," said Maxime Gourov, spokesman for the Russian embassy in Oslo, according to Agence France-Presse.
LINK



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
This is a Marine Rotational Force. They go to part of the world and train for 6 months then leave. Sometimes a new group follows right away sometimes it is just a few times a year.

In Norway the Marines have pre position equipment for a brigade of Marines who just need to jump on a plane and fall in on their weapons systems. So in 24 hours a Brigade of Marines with armor would be available in Norway. Makes the 300 Marine rotational force paranoia seem kind of silly eh?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Your belief doesn't change the fact that this is a temporary agreement to allow 330 Marines to rotate through Norway for training purposes.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
a reply to: thesungod

Why is everyone so concerned with the number 300? My belief is that it's the deployment of Marines in Norway that matters. Repeating what I wrote earlier:


Because I have been to war and 300 men is not a threat against an Army.

And what MrSpad said. Hidden EQ



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
why are you both here? a reply to: Orionx2



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Here are a couple of experts who seem to see this differently. The first quote concerns a point I've been trying to make in this thread:

The way I see that is that now that there's an agreement between Norway and the U.S. for some Marines to be deployed in Norway, the number could be increased easily (please see my previous post in this thread for more on that).

The second quote concerns one reason why people see this move as being potentially dangerous or signifying something dangerous.


The troops also will “increase NATO’s ability to rapidly aggregate and employ forces in northern Europe,” Major General Niel Nelson, commander of US Marines in Europe, added.

...

Former senior Norwegian army officer Jacob Borresen said the planned deployment “sends negative signals eastwards”.

The big risk, he told broadcaster NRK, is that the move creates a Cold War-style “confrontation zone”.

SOURCE



originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Profusion

Your belief doesn't change the fact that this is a temporary agreement to allow 330 Marines to rotate through Norway for training purposes.


I'll take the word of a Major General. I think anyone who wants to disagree with the quote below is just whistling in the dark.


The troops also will “increase NATO’s ability to rapidly aggregate and employ forces in northern Europe,” Major General Niel Nelson, commander of US Marines in Europe, added.

SOURCE

edit on 26-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Well entertaining your notion.

What if it Norway is just countering THIS ACT BY RUSSIA IN 2015.
edit on 26-10-2016 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

You're replying to a post where a quote by Major General Niel Nelson, commander of US Marines in Europe confirmed what I proposed, and you continue to refer to the idea as "[my] notion"?

His quote also confirms that the Marines being sent to Norway are there for the purposes of NATO as a whole. The hypothetical situation you just brought up does not match the evidence at all.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Yeah. I could have wrote that better. I meant "Well, I'm going to entertain your notion of this being an anti Russia move."

How so? Russia stages a mock invasion of Norway in 2015. Then Norway pulls in US equipment and US Marines, strengthening ties with NATO in 2016. Cause and effect. How does that not match the evidence?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Ooh fear mongering. Yay!

At least it's better than election nonsense.

It's for cold weather training, that's it. And testing some newer gear in extreme cold weather environments.

And for the people stuck on only 300 against all of Russia. You know we can have 5000 Marines anywhere in the world within 24 hours...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: Profusion

Yeah. I could have wrote that better. I meant "Well, I'm going to entertain your notion of this being an anti Russia move."

How so? Russia stages a mock invasion of Norway in 2015. Then Norway pulls in US equipment and US Marines, strengthening ties with NATO in 2016. Cause and effect. How does that not match the evidence?


I can't prove that's wrong. There could have been endless factors involved with deploying the Marines. I have direct and circumstantial evidence for my view. If all you've got are hypotheticals, I won't be involved in this discussion anymore.

a reply to: watchitburn


The troops also will “increase NATO’s ability to rapidly aggregate and employ forces in northern Europe,” Major General Niel Nelson, commander of US Marines in Europe, added.

SOURCE

ed it on 26-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

So...


The troops also will “increase NATO’s ability to rapidly aggregate and employ forces in northern Europe,” Major General Niel Nelson, commander of US Marines in Europe, added.


This single quote is your context for this being an anti Russia move? Why can't it just be a pro NATO move? Or a pro Norway move?

I gave direct evidence of a drill that can be taken as circumstantial evidence of why the move was made. Your theory is just as "hypothetical" as mine.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

I never wrote that this is an "anti-Russian move." My view on it is summarized below.

"The way I see that is that now that there's an agreement between Norway and the U.S. for some Marines to be deployed in Norway, the number could be increased easily (please see my previous posts in this thread for more on that). "

If I had to guess why this happened, I would lean toward it having to do with Russia. Russia's reaction to this news indicates to me that they feel that way. As to the circimstantial evidence I have for the leaning I have concerning this matter, just see my threads in the WW3 forum.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Three hundred US Marines moving about...

What of it? Three hundred US Marines poses little to no threat to the VASTNESS of the Russian military. It means, in and of itself, absolutely nothing what so ever. Ergo, this is either a token gesture of reassurance to Norway and nothing more, or a particularly pointless bit of member swinging, that makes the US appear flaccid.

And as for sabre rattling, yes, it is sabre rattling. However, the largest bit of sabre rattling of this decade has been that of North Korea, which has been detonating test devices and launching missiles with total abandon, and without the slightest bit of concern about the treaties and UN directives being violated in the doing of it. Theirs is the loudest, and least well fit and finished sabre.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I have seen speculation that the recall order was designed to control those officials. Apparently they are nipping any possible power struggles in the bud.

I am starting to think certain actions being taken bu putin are designed to consolidate even more power with the russian federation borders.

Family members as hostages / being used as leverage is not a new tactic.

ETA -
Putin Springs Leaks of His Own as Russian Assange Airs Secrets


Vladimir Putin is learning that embarrassing leaks are a two-way street.

Infighting among Putin’s inner circle has led to a series of disclosures over the past few months that have shined a harsh light on the private dealings of the Kremlin court -- much as Hillary Clinton has endured the airing of thousands of e-mails as a result of what the U.S. calls Russian hacking of her campaign.

As the Kremlin gears up for Putin’s last re-election bid in 18 months, anti-graft crusader Alexei Navalny has emerged as the conduit of choice for rival factions to scoop dirt on each other as they jostle to retain their fiefdoms. While Putin has largely stayed above the fray, anonymous tips and research by Navalny’s staff of 30 have led to a string of revelations about the extravagance of some of the Russian leader’s closest allies, including a new luxury home for his premier, army contracts for his personal chef and private-jet travel for the show dogs of a top official.

Navalny’s critics say he’s just a pawn in a bigger game, but the 40-year-old lawyer says it doesn’t matter where leaks come from as long as they expose officialdom -- and the more strife sown along the way, the better.

“They’re starting to devour one another,” Navalny said at his foundation’s office in Moscow, which is paid for through public donations.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...
Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now!


click link for article.
edit on 26-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
So what do you believe 300 marines could do against 6 armor divisons not to mention thr north sea naval base and 5 airforce basses totalling over 10000 people. 300 marines wouldn't last 5 min. The best they could do was hide. If Russia wants to take over Norway nothing Nato could do to stop it. Reality is Norway would become an occupied nation and thr best scenario would be setting up an underground to fight back. And thr other NATO nations would eventually have to free them from Russian control. Think France durine world War 2. Thr only thing that would prevent a Russian advance would be them entering Poland or germany.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join