Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Same was said for the BEF in 1914 and the finnish army during the russian invasion but both held up the advance of thier enemies and caused serious casualties for the enemy.


And the Germans got very close to taking Paris anyways and at that by suffering a quarter million casualties less than those who were doing so well in your opinion. The Finn's were simply very well trained and fought in terrain and weather that suited the defense against a enemy that had neither good training or the type of leaders that were required to lead troops in such situations. Fact is if one looks at the Finnish campaign it's quickly obvious that the USSR were not going to lose whatever their mistakes and they were learning from their mistakes at great speed despite being up against the tactical odds they were.


Europe is not as fragmented as you would believe, it has one of the best submarine forces in the world, one of the best ASW forces in the world and a sizable army.


Their navies are quite useless and they simply lack the means to stage effective SEAD/DEAD operations meaning that the Russian air force will be able to operate behind a virtual wall employing it's two hundred odd blackjack and backfire bombers to create holes where they want them while deploying the 1000 odd front line fighters they still operate... As far as i am concerned Europe has no credible means of conventional self defense and resorting to strategic arms will get them incinerated quite faster than they otherwise would be... Without the USAF they stand no chance in my opinion and even with it ( given a purely conventional war) i have my doubts about what they could achieve against air defenses deployed in such numbers. Even if they could effectively counter those air defenses it would simply take weeks they do not have.


Russian forces would find it very difficult to invade europe without recieving heavy losses and possible nuclear strikes from france and the UK.


The Russian national ABM defenses will ensure that the RF suffer no or very few nuclear strikes and their infrastructure and armed forces were designed around sustaining strikes by the American arsenal; Europeans forces wont resort to nuclear strikes and their conventional forces are not large enough or well enough equipped to sustain the initial Russian assault.

That all being said it's simply not going to happen as Russian strategic geophysical weapons are more than enough to blackmail European leaders into the concessions they are likely to achieve without the European citizenry discovering who is really pulling the strings.

Stellar

[edit on 12-3-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   


posted by StellarX

(1) And [Devil_Wasp] the Germans got very close to taking Paris anyways and at that by suffering a quarter million casualties less than those who were doing so well in your opinion. (2) The Finn's were simply very well trained and fought in terrain and weather that suited the defense against a enemy that had neither good training or the type of leaders that were required to lead troops in such situations.



1) I assume BEF stands for British Expeditionary Force and that in France. Of course, in WW1, the Germans did get close enough to Paris they were able to shell it with the longest range artillery piece in the history of modern warfare. 70 km I believe. Early example of terrorism against the civilian population. The WW2 BEF had to withdraw quickly from Dunkirk, in June 1940.
2) The Russo-Finnish War showed the weakness of the Red Army. It was after the great purge of Stalin who is said to have had executed 3/4ths of the Soviet officer corps from field grade up. That squandering of talent and the fact the numerically smaller Finns had held the Russians at bay, for the most part, is thought to have contributed mightily to Hitler’s belief that Germany could conquer the USSR to the Urals.



Their [European per Devil_Wasp] navies are quite useless and they simply lack the means to stage effective SEAD/DEAD operations meaning that the Russian air force will be able to operate behind a virtual wall employing it's two hundred odd blackjack and backfire bombers to create holes where they want them while deploying the 1000 odd front line fighters they still operate . .


StellarX has a much higher and more expansive view of the RF’s military capabilities and its equipment than I have. First, I do not foresee any war between any of the countries mentioned, in this century. It is so far from my vision of the world that I’d make ‘War Contingency Plans’ way, way down on my list of things to do. Wars do not happen in a vacuum. It took years for WW1 and WW2 to become shooting contests. The signs for both ere plainly visible for a decade, but we ignored it then. I do not see Europeans doing that again. Ever. The RF is much like the PRC, it has so many internal problems that it will not be able to look abroad for solutions. I cannot contribute to this scenario - the EU vs. the RF - due to biological limits on my imagination.



As far as I am concerned Europe has no credible means of conventional self defense and resorting to strategic arms [nuclear weapons] will get them incinerated faster than they otherwise would be . . Without the USAF they stand no chance in my opinion and even with a purely conventional war I have my doubts about what they could achieve against air defenses deployed in such numbers [by the RF].



I’ve pointed out elsewhere the US spends about $800 b. a year on war. And the consequences of war. Even a pacificist like me cannot conceive of cutting the dollar number to less than half. In part due to the $200+ b. to pay interest on the national debt attributable to past DoD expenses. I hope we resist the Bush43 proposal to add 92,000 men to the Armed Forces by 2010. If you’ve got’em you’ll use’em.



The Russian national ABM defenses will ensure that the RF suffer no or very few nuclear strikes and their infrastructure and armed forces were designed around sustaining strikes by the American arsenal; Europeans forces won’t resort to nuclear strikes and their conventional forces are not large enough or well enough equipped to sustain the initial Russian assault. That all being said it's simply not going to happen as Russian strategic geophysical weapons are more than enough to blackmail European leaders into the concessions they are likely to achieve without the European citizenry discovering who is really pulling the strings. Stellar
[Edited by Don W]



You may know I am super skeptical about the ABM stuff. It is the thing of which boondoggles are made. It reeks of corruption. It is an unarmed pot of gold waiting to have its virginity taken from it by rapacious capitalists aided and abetted by warmongering politicians and their camp followers.

If I am going to die in a nuclear exchange, I want everyone and most especially the leaders who mucked it up, to die with me.

[edit on 3/12/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
SteallarX it's nice that you don't think Europe is capable of Defending herself but NATO policy analysts and Foreign Policy Journal disagrees with you.

The general consensus is Europe is more capable of a joint Defense than including the US and is looking to separate itself from the US influencing through NATO hence partly a restructuring of the US base locations in Europe.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Investor
SteallarX it's nice that you don't think Europe is capable of Defending herself but NATO policy analysts and Foreign Policy Journal disagrees with you.


Which is well within their rights i suppose and i presume you will supply us with some references... The foreign policy Journal of the DC-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace? The same people who help destroy the peace so often ? Why are we taking their word for anything again? Who do they think NATO ( without the USAF or army) will be able to defend Europe from?


The general consensus is Europe is more capable of a joint Defense than including the US and is looking to separate itself from the US influencing through NATO hence partly a restructuring of the US base locations in Europe.


I think NATO is getting drawn into battle's they do not have the ability to fund ( to say nothing of the absence of public support) and would enjoy being in a position where the USA could not so easily drag them along.

So bring some references to the table as i am quite interested to see who , besides you, is making these claims.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
russians will not use the weapons it's all about using and doing getting.everything is about that.




[edit on 14-3-2007 by exotic4499]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by exotic4499]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And the Germans got very close to taking Paris anyways and at that by suffering a quarter million casualties less than those who were doing so well in your opinion.

Yes but very close does not constitute taking it now does it?
The BEF held off the german army very well considering the size comparision and the fact that the german army was widely seen as the best in the world.



The Finn's were simply very well trained and fought in terrain and weather that suited the defense against a enemy that had neither good training or the type of leaders that were required to lead troops in such situations. Fact is if one looks at the Finnish campaign it's quickly obvious that the USSR were not going to lose whatever their mistakes and they were learning from their mistakes at great speed despite being up against the tactical odds they were.

Learning mistakes takes time and they need not win a full out victory they merely need to cause enough injury for russia to see no need to be there.



Their navies are quite useless and they simply lack the means to stage effective SEAD/DEAD operations meaning that the Russian air force will be able to operate behind a virtual wall employing it's two hundred odd blackjack and backfire bombers to create holes where they want them while deploying the 1000 odd front line fighters they still operate...

Quite useless? Last time I checked we had quite an effective navy (maybe not for invading another country but then again thats always useful in a defencive war) and more than the entire american atlantic fleet (I stopped counting after 120 ships)



As far as i am concerned Europe has no credible means of conventional self defense and resorting to strategic arms will get them incinerated quite faster than they otherwise would be... Without the USAF they stand no chance in my opinion and even with it ( given a purely conventional war) i have my doubts about what they could achieve against air defenses deployed in such numbers. Even if they could effectively counter those air defenses it would simply take weeks they do not have.

No offence but I'll take your "opinion" with a grain of salt, the USAF presence in europe is shrinking and frankly for a good reason (russia doesnt see the need to invade western europe), I mean come on give me one reason they would actually be foolish enough to try it?
Also countering air defences, why would we counter air defences when we are defending?



The Russian national ABM defenses will ensure that the RF suffer no or very few nuclear strikes and their infrastructure and armed forces were designed around sustaining strikes by the American arsenal; Europeans forces wont resort to nuclear strikes and their conventional forces are not large enough or well enough equipped to sustain the initial Russian assault.

And britain would not involve the rest of nato? I doubt it.
I have yet to see your so called proof of the ABM shield that russia has, apart from claiming they will start airbursting nukes over thier major cities (if you want your children to glow in the dark go ahead...), Europeans would resort to it if they felt the need please dont assume a tiger will lie down if its backed into a corner.
Europes combined forces are more than needed to stop a russia assault , has anyone actually counted the combined or availible forces of the european countries or even just the EU countries?
Europe is not just central europe anymore, its now several eastern block countries.


That all being said it's simply not going to happen as Russian strategic geophysical weapons are more than enough to blackmail European leaders into the concessions they are likely to achieve without the European citizenry discovering who is really pulling the strings.

Yes the mighty sneaky russian bear pulling strings along with the mighty all controlling US empire, guess europe never had a spy force or even the sense to try blackmailing or geophysicla weapons stellar....thats right we're all stupid chip munching fools...not like our smart american colluges

**end sarcasm***



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes but very close does not constitute taking it now does it?


Without the Russian front they probably would have just as they did in 1940.


The BEF held off the german army very well considering the size comparision and the fact that the german army was widely seen as the best in the world.


Go look at the casualties suffered by the 'allies' and tell me if there is any excuse for that.


Learning mistakes takes time and they need not win a full out victory they merely need to cause enough injury for russia to see no need to be there.


So basically you are arguing that the US did not learn from their second world war experience and that the SU did not learn from their experience of losing entire army groups? Frankly the US has never fought a war like the one the US has against Germany and it's for that reason that the USSR were so ready for the next one.


Quite useless? Last time I checked we had quite an effective navy (maybe not for invading another country but then again thats always useful in a defencive war) and more than the entire american atlantic fleet (I stopped counting after 120 ships)


Navies are not very useful in a continental war.


No offence but I'll take your "opinion" with a grain of salt,


Feel free.



the USAF presence in europe is shrinking and frankly for a good reason (russia doesnt see the need to invade western europe),


Agreed; Russia's strategic position is so strong that they simply have no reason to risk fighting a conventional war to gain what they can by old fashioned blackmail.


I mean come on give me one reason they would actually be foolish enough to try it?


They wont as things are going there way as is.


Also countering air defences, why would we counter air defences when we are defending?


You can not interdict enemy airfields and conventional force concentrations without contending with their air defenses and air force...


And britain would not involve the rest of nato? I doubt it.


Britain would get involved for sure; did not mean or exclude them if it seemed that way to you.


I have yet to see your so called proof of the ABM shield that russia has,


You mean you managed to avoid the ten odd threads where i posted so much source material?


Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...



However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...



This new evidence reinforces longstanding concerns about systematic Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty. Battlefield management radars are
the long leadtime component of any ABM defense system and the Soviets seem to have gained a great deal of experience in this field since 1975 when they installed an ABM-X-3 radar in the Kamchatka impact area for their ICBM tests. Over the years, the Soviets have also been upgrading their surface-to-air (SAM) bomber defense systems--now presumed to perform an ABM role. Since the Carter Administration, the Soviets repeatedly have tested various types of SAM missiles in'a discernable ABM mode at altitudes above 100,000 feet and have deployed thousands of less capable SA-5 missiles around-Soviet cities. These illegal ABM activities and the development of an anti-tactical ballistic missle system clearly point to a Soviet decision to subvert the ABM Treaty shortly after signing it.

Refusals to acknowledge these Soviet treaty violations point to the perennial dilemma of what to do after detecting cheating. The Administra-. tion is doingitself and the country no favor by refusing to acknowledge the mounting evidence that the Soviets are developing a capability which seriously erodes strategic stability and will soon permit the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty. The Administration should document and publicize Soviet ABM activities and Treaty violations. It should accele- rate the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BDM) program. Unless Moscow can refute the evidence that its radar and weapons programs are not de- signed for an ABM role, the U.S. should abrogate the ABM Treaty.

www.heritage.org...



Washington, D.C.): Today's Wall Street Journal features an extraordinarily timely column by the newspaper's highly respected Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Melanie Kirkpatrick. Thanks to Ms. Kirkpatrick, a dirty little secret is now in the public domain: Even as Russian President Vladimir Putin goes to great lengths to denounce President Bush's commitment to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack, railing about the threat thus posed to the sacrosanct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and seeking to divide United States from its allies, Russia is maintaining a national missile defense of its own that is clearly inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty.

This revelation demands several responses: 1) President Bush should task his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board or some other independent blue-ribbon group to perform an immediate and rigorous assessment of former Defense Intelligence Officer William Lee's work on the Soviet/Russian NMD system and the classified official analyses that have, to date, minimized its strategic capabilities and significance. 2) Present the findings of such a study to the American people and U.S. allies. And 3) end the official U.S. practice inherited by Mr. Bush of allowing the United States to be the only nation whose missile defense programs are encumbered by the outdated and increasingly dangerous ABM Treaty, thereby clearing the way for deployment as soon as possible of effective anti-missile protection for this country, as well as Russia.

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...



In 1968, the total Tallinn system consisted of nearly 30 operational launch complexes with a similar number under construction. Each complex generally consisted of three launch sites. Each site had six SA-5B Gammon launchers and a modest-sized Square Pair radar. Of the 30 operational complexes, only six were close enough to the Hen House radars in Olenegorsk and Skrunda to have a potential ABM role (see "Soviet ABM System, 1968").

There was considerable disagreement within the U.S. intelligence community at the time about whether the improved Tallinn system was to defend against aircraft, ballistic missiles, or some combination of the two. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) agreed with the air force, which in late 1967 concluded that the system "possesses significant capabilities in both a terminal defense and area ABM role." But six months later, in a memorandum for President Lyndon Johnson, newly appointed Defense Secretary Clark Clifford said an ABM capability "now appears unlikely."

The CIA concluded that it did "not believe there is any deployment of ABM defenses outside the Moscow area," and the Tallinn system was "unlikely to have a present ABM capability," though it acknowledged, "the state of available evidence does not permit us to exclude this possibility." This view was shared by the navy, which decided that the system had "negligible capabilities against ballistic missiles."

There was general agreement that the limited Moscow and Tallinn systems would not be able to counter a large U.S. ballistic missile attack. In fact, the CIA later concluded that it "doubt[ed] that the Soviets will have an ABM system worth deploying against the U.S. threat in the foreseeable future."

www.thebulletin.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...


And i could go on for pages and pages more and in however much detail you could possibly require.


apart from claiming they will start airbursting nukes over thier major cities (if you want your children to glow in the dark go ahead...),


Fact is the Japanese moved backed into the nuked cities very quickly ( and many if not most survivors never left) and there seems a complete lack of evidence that they are suffering for it. The worse nuclear disaster in history ( as bad as i can get really) killed all of 35 people so far and there is little evidence to suggest that it will kill many more in the future. The 10 000 radiation ' will kill you' story is complete and utter nonsense and nonsense i can disprove if you want me to.


Europeans would resort to it if they felt the need please dont assume a tiger will lie down if its backed into a corner.


Tigers in corners can't do much if up against rifle's if the hunter is not hopelessly incompetent.


Europes combined forces are more than needed to stop a russia assault , has anyone actually counted the combined or availible forces of the european countries or even just the EU countries?


In manpower Europe does not face serious problems but in these modern times assault rifle's does not win wars. I do think equipment numbers matter but that was not good enough for the USSR and they not only aimed for basic equipment systems ( tanks,IFV's, aircraft) that were comparable , and i think their tanks in the late 40's - 70's were superior, to their western counterparts but to have large numbers of them. IF Europe could combine and operate it's armed forces effectively it would decent fighting force but would still simply be overwhelmed by numbers even if the war did not escalate. For various reasons beyond that one Russia will be winning the next European war.



Europe is not just central europe anymore, its now several eastern block countries.



Most ( all really) still run by KGB members or former' communist'.


Yes the mighty sneaky russian bear pulling strings along with the mighty all controlling US empire, guess europe never had a spy force or even the sense to try blackmailing or geophysicla weapons stellar....thats right we're all stupid chip munching fools...not like our smart american colluges **end sarcasm***


I don't see how you arrived at the conclusion that Americans are smart.
If only people realised how little control the US still wields....

So you don't really have a issue with the statement that the USSR are employing Geophysical weapons against European countries when they do not do as their told?



Stellar



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   


posted by StellarX

Today's Wall Street Journal features an extraordinarily timely column by the newspaper's highly respected Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Melanie Kirkpatrick. Thanks to Ms. Kirkpatrick, a dirty little secret is now in the public domain: Even as Russian President Vladimir Putin goes to great lengths to denounce President Bush's commitment to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack, railing about the threat thus posed to the sacrosanct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and seeking to divide United States from its allies, Russia is maintaining a national missile defense of its own that is clearly inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end. In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

The CIA concluded that it did "not believe there is any deployment of ABM defenses outside the Moscow area," and the Tallinn system was "unlikely to have a present ABM capability," though it acknowledged, "the state of available evidence does not permit us to exclude this possibility." This view was shared by the navy, which decided that the system had "negligible capabilities against ballistic missiles."

There was general agreement that the limited Moscow and Tallinn systems would not be able to counter a large U.S. ballistic missile attack. In fact, the CIA later concluded that it "doubt[ed] that the Soviets will have an ABM system worth deploying against the U.S. threat in the foreseeable future." [Edited by Don W]



I recall the ABM Treaty. It provided each nation - US and USSR could choose one of two sites to defend. The USSR choose Moscow and the US choose our main ICBM base in North Dakota, over Washington, DC. There were two reasons for the US decision discussed in public. 1) That no existing ABM system was effective. 2) That the US relied on the MAD theory as a deterrent.

Software people said it would take 1-2 million lines of code to make an impenetrable ABM system, provided we had the hardware capability. It was generally agreed it is impossible to write 2 million lines of code error free. The general consensus was an effective ABM system was highly improbable and a mission unworthy of much investment. For political reasons the funds for research work continued despite the public decision to abandon the project. CYA it is called.

Our side - ABM advocates - have been caught lying to us taxpayers several times, claiming ABM success when in reality there was no success. I suspect we are planning to use nuclear tips on our ABM missiles and don’t want to say so to the public. In part because we may not be sure what the EMP can do to ourselves. Without using nuclear bombs on the ABM tip, I have grave doubts as to the claimed success rate of shooting down an incoming missile. 10,000 km/hr is 2,700 m/sec. If a small nuke air burst has a 1 km kill radius you would have but 0.37 seconds in which to detonate the warhead. I am a techno freak, but I do not have that much confidence in anybody’s technology to do that.

As for the USSR and now the RF, I do not mean to demean those people but I cannot help but remember (1970s) the USSR was still using vacuum tube electronics when our equipment was moving into the 3 generation of solid state. The shoot-down of KAL007 revealed the inadequacies of the Soviet’s electronics despite Kamchatka being its Most Secure Area in the far east of the USSR.

In conclusion, I think the ABM yes and ABM no is much to do about nothing. (Except for the billions of wasted tax dollars we could use better in other areas, like feeding the people in Darfur.) I have never lost one nights sleep over the Ruskies and their ICBMs.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Without the Russian front they probably would have just as they did in 1940.

Your point?



Go look at the casualties suffered by the 'allies' and tell me if there is any excuse for that.

Exscuse for holding the entire german army off with rifles and artillery while troops were being trained and repositioned, how about just engaging the enemy to give them a bloody nose, that good enough?



So basically you are arguing that the US did not learn from their second world war experience and that the SU did not learn from their experience of losing entire army groups?

No, I'm saying learning mistakes takes time (look at how long its taken the royal navy in the falklands and we're STILL learning from those mistakes. Or look at the british army's experience in northern ireland.)


Frankly the US has never fought a war like the one the US has against Germany and it's for that reason that the USSR were so ready for the next one.

Yeah....you might want to redo that sentance....



Navies are not very useful in a continental war.

Arent they? Last time I checked they where extremely effecitive at stopping shipping and were an effective force projector.



Agreed; Russia's strategic position is so strong that they simply have no reason to risk fighting a conventional war to gain what they can by old fashioned blackmail.

Yet again this "black mail" doesnt seem to be working to me..



You can not interdict enemy airfields and conventional force concentrations without contending with their air defenses and air force...

Hmm yeah, but then again how effective is russian anti air network?



You mean you managed to avoid the ten odd threads where i posted so much source material?

I dont spend much time online thanks to workload at work...bu t the last time we discussed this you brought up the ablity for the russians to use nuclear weapons in defence.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And i could go on for pages and pages more and in however much detail you could possibly require.

You have far too much time on your hands if you could...



Fact is the Japanese moved backed into the nuked cities very quickly ( and many if not most survivors never left) and there seems a complete lack of evidence that they are suffering for it. The worse nuclear disaster in history ( as bad as i can get really) killed all of 35 people so far and there is little evidence to suggest that it will kill many more in the future. The 10 000 radiation ' will kill you' story is complete and utter nonsense and nonsense i can disprove if you want me to.

Your meaning chernobyl I take it? Actually 203 people had to be hospitilised imediatly and hundreds relocated from the area, imagine if the russians start airbusrting over cities.



Tigers in corners can't do much if up against rifle's if the hunter is not hopelessly incompetent.

Seeing russians last 2 wars (Chechnia and afghanistan) and how effective they've been I'll take my chances with the tiger.



In manpower Europe does not face serious problems but in these modern times assault rifle's does not win wars. I do think equipment numbers matter but that was not good enough for the USSR and they not only aimed for basic equipment systems ( tanks,IFV's, aircraft) that were comparable , and i think their tanks in the late 40's - 70's were superior, to their western counterparts but to have large numbers of them. IF Europe could combine and operate it's armed forces effectively it would decent fighting force but would still simply be overwhelmed by numbers even if the war did not escalate. For various reasons beyond that one Russia will be winning the next European war.

Doubt it, russia may have numbers but without having to pull troops from all over russia and put them to the european front they would have a hard time. Russia and europe would probably be brought to a stalemate if both sides pulled out all the stops, russia does not have the overwhelming numbers ability it had under the comunist regime and even thought it still retains a part of this it is still weak from its collapse.



Most ( all really) still run by KGB members or former' communist'.

Yes and most (all really) will fight russia for thier new found freedom if the russians start massing on the border.



So you don't really have a issue with the statement that the USSR are employing Geophysical weapons against European countries when they do not do as their told?

Russia has been using indirect weapons for many years but that doesnt always mean they are sucessful.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Your point?


Unless Russia can be suitable distracted....


Exscuse for holding the entire german army off with rifles and artillery while troops were being trained and repositioned, how about just engaging the enemy to give them a bloody nose, that good enough?


They had more troops on the front than the Germans did both times ( check but the margins were not significant ) and their equipment were not inferior the first time and superior the second time round. Don't change history to suit your bias.


No, I'm saying learning mistakes takes time (look at how long its taken the royal navy in the falklands and we're STILL learning from those mistakes. Or look at the british army's experience in northern ireland.)


It takes absolutely no time to learn from mistakes if learning is the aim and if it's not being done it's because there is no will in the command structure. The RN new better and had the Argentinians had a few more missiles god knows what might have been left of the RN if they kept up their foolish coastal patrols.


Yeah....you might want to redo that sentance....


The point was pretty obvious despite what i typed; the US has never been involved in a modern war where they had to contend with a enemy that had the vitality of the Wehrmacht of 1941 and that is why i say they could not possible have learnt the lessons the SU did.


Arent they? Last time I checked they where extremely effecitive at stopping shipping and were an effective force projector.


As if Russia or the Su/USSR required the strategic materials that the allies attempted to rob Germany of...


Yet again this "black mail" doesnt seem to be working to me..


If you wont look you probably will not find...


Hmm yeah, but then again how effective is russian anti air network?


Your the one claiming that the EU will effectively be able to defend themselves against Russian strategic bombers operating from behind a dense air defense network so why don't you research the issue?


I dont spend much time online thanks to workload at work...bu t the last time we discussed this you brought up the ablity for the russians to use nuclear weapons in defence.


If you don't have time to learn why attempt to engage in discussions about issues you clearly have not researched to the depth i have? I never have understood that practice but i presume, if one is suitably arrogant, your opinion gains merit ( at least in your own eyes) by virtue of simply being yours


Originally posted by devilwasp
You have far too much time on your hands if you could...


So discovering the truth is only important if takes no more than the free time you can spare?


Your meaning chernobyl I take it? Actually 203 people had to be hospitilised imediatly


And 203 is many in your opinion?


and hundreds relocated from the area,


Hundreds of thousands were moved out of the surrounding areas in the following weeks/months.


imagine if the russians start airbusrting over cities.


I have and as long as you are not above ground with ample food for a month or two it is just another war to be won or lost.


Seeing russians last 2 wars (Chechnia and afghanistan) and how effective they've been I'll take my chances with the tiger.


So would i as the tiger does not have the CIA and other Intelligence groups funding him ...


Doubt it, russia may have numbers but without having to pull troops from all over russia and put them to the european front they would have a hard time.


Russia have the numbers both in men and equipment and that is my point. Over the last decade their border with China has been slowly demiliterized and this will only continue as their alliance grows stronger.


Russia and europe would probably be brought to a stalemate if both sides pulled out all the stops, russia does not have the overwhelming numbers ability it had under the comunist regime and even thought it still retains a part of this it is still weak from its collapse.


Russia has very much the same numbers it had fifteen years ago and it's up to us to believe that those tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft in storage are not serviceable or being upgraded; they certainly seem to have money for seemingly less important expenditures...


Yes and most (all really) will fight russia for thier new found freedom if the russians start massing on the border.


The Russians wont be the perceived aggressors in this case just as they were not in Second world war or the first world war... Not being able to control the countryside does not mean you are not running the state machinery as the Germans showed by deploying deploying submarines from the French coast while bombing London. The Nazi regime effectively managed to exploit the captured territories even if the resistance were never completely overcome.


Russia has been using indirect weapons for many years but that doesnt always mean they are sucessful.


I am not talking about lasers or particle beam weapons but GEOPHYSICAL weapons "whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." How will the EU fight when their armored formations are simply bound to a given area by localized but massive torrential downpours? How do you interdict a enemy that can largely control the weather over the front?

Stellar

[edit on 18-3-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I consent - concur - to the thrust of your post, Mr S/X. OTOH, defensively speaking,


Agreeing on generalities is not a bad place to start considering the disagreements i have gotten involved in on ATS.
Always hard for me respond to posts where i agree with so much while there are so many waiting that i completely disagree with and the only thing that makes it worth my while is that it's a nice change to converse with informed folk who have discovered and investigated the vast gaps in classical schooling.



it is important to me for you to keep in mind that the 2000 election saw the Blue states ahead by 500,000 votes and by 3 million plus if you include the Green’s total with the Dems.


Not going to touch that more than to say that neither sides are trying to win badly enough to expose the obvious lies of their so called 'opponents' when it goes against their mutual interest to do so...


This is understandable though, as the public is not so much devoted to the fine details of either history or current events.


And how could they be when it's warped in ways that makes it hopelessly chaotic and seemingly confusing? What can you learn from history ( and thus the future) if history has been altered so that those who study are warped to believe what their rulers would have them by one means or another? History as tough in school will not make anyone better informed for the effort and simply serve to turn you into a cynic of note that may or may not have some love left for humanity in general...


The lack of interest in acquiring knowledge of the world is a product of our own military prowess and economic success just after WW2. We did not have to know about the world. If you lived in Austria, or Czechoslovakia or the Benelux, you better know what’s going on. Your very life is at stake. In America in 2004, most people were busy making a living. For better or for worse they depend on 20 second bites the tv calls news for making their decisions.


In large part true but i would include that the history they teach do not serve those who learn it in any worthwhile way.


The 2004 Dems were on the horns of a dilemma. In America, you cannot run as an anti-war party or candidate when the soldiers are dying in the field


I am quite sure you could if you cared to but if your not willing to expose the depth and complexity of the lies and the criminal intent of those who are involved your better left doing what the Dem's in fact did. The only important things these parties seem to have in common is that both want to preserve the power ( they hope the inherit but know they might get killed for if challenged in any significant way ) the American government can bring to bear on the world and for that no amount of truth sacrificed is beyond them.


That is the equal to high treason. The Dems decided to offer the public a pledge to “do it better.” The Iraq War. That proved unpersuasive.


I would say that the public understood that neither party were interested in what Americans wanted in this regard as the Democratic party simply did not lay the ground work ( for it would undermine their own future power) for a campaign based on truth.


When it comes to war and peace, the voters (anywhere) rarely change leaders in mid-course. Despite that handicap, the Dems figured the election well. They predicted Ohio would be the decisive state. It was. Bush got 2,859,000 to Kerry's 2,741,000, losing by 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million votes cast. The Dems thought it would be closer. www.cnn.com...


The voters rarely change mid course because they rarely have a worthwhile choice between cadidates that just offers them 'more of the same'. Ron Paul has some great articles about that particular line of reasoning.


If, and I know IF is a big word, the Dems had carried Ohio, they would have won 2004 in the Electoral College. To the Dem’s credit, they correctly figured the 2000 election would pivot with Florida. They nominated Joe Lieberman to carry the Jewish vote in Florida. He came oh so close. The Dems lost by an official count of 537 votes. I say the Dems have a good grasp on our political scene. Americans have tolerated - for as long a I have lived - an electoral system where close elections usually go to the people who do the counting. I doubt that will change.


We all know by now that the Dems in fact won Florida by a large margin and that it took no small conspiracy for the so called right ( It's generous beyond measure to call them the right instead of pure reactionaries) ) to steal it from them. Greg Palast have done startlingly work for the BBC on this topic and i suggest you check it out before disagreeing too furiously



Aside: If you are interested in American history, look at the 1876 Hayes vs. Tilden election, which was a watershed event in America. The North abandoned the former slaves to the cruelty of the South, in return for corporate supremacy.


It's been a long time since i believed sir Lincoln were inspired by such base motives ( liberty for mere slaves) so this does not surprise me much...


It was then that Americans agreed to treat corporations as natural persons before the law, giving corporations ths same legal rights as a person. Americans have no concept what “Limited” means when placed behind a corporate name elsewhere in the world. When I explain the significance of this historical tidbit, it falls on deaf ears.


I understand the 'deaf ears' phenomenon all too well. People who think corporations deserve the same rights they have ( and i am not sure how many have in fact thought about this) probably deserve at least some of what they end up getting.


Resume: You lumped my icon of the 20th century, FDR, in with others of not nearly so admirable accomplishments. Although elected in November, 1932, FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933. A constitutional amendment changed that to January 20 in time for the 1936 inauguration. Our elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, so that is about as quick a change in government you are likely to get in the US of A.


I have the cruel habit of disagreeing even with those who mostly agree with me; the truth is after all , much like gravity, a very cruel master who spares not those who have the audacity to find it.


FDR could have largely prevented the second world war from ever taking place if he was not so deeply involved in bringing it about.


While it is true the Civil Service Commission and Interstate Commerce Commission were established in the late 19th century and the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve System in the early 1900s, even those early experiments in sound governance were minuscule compared to the reforms instituted out of whole cloth by FDR in the New Deal.


I know it's commonly said that the new deal did so much to raise the American standard of living but do you know that Germans were in fact ( while still better off than most Europeans) worse off in the mid late 30's than they were in the late 20's? Have you checked to make sure that the same is not true for the US or that it was in fact the New Deal ( basically centralized job creation by vast government spending) as such that brought about the raised standards? I just lack the time but i think you might very well want to double back and make sure of what would have happened had your 'Icon' tried to do in Germany ( and much the same in fact were done by both) what he did in the USA. I am quite convinced that had Hitler the resources of the US Germans would have benefited more than Americans did by all those wealth. Hitler prepared a war machine that had the capacity to win the envisioned ( and even the other one's) wars but it's surprising on what levels consumer production proceeded throughout the earlier years and even the war years.


I’d say nearly all of what you see in America today can be dated to the period 1933-1939.


I think you give the American people too little credit as it's in my opinion they who resisted what eventually happened in the late 60's.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

I’d say nearly all of what you see in America today can be dated to the period 1933-1939.


I think you give the American people too little credit as it's in my opinion they who resisted what eventually happened in the late 60's.


The dismantling of America’s Federal government began under Ronnie Reagan and has gone full steam ahead under Bush43. Which is why I hold both in such disdain. But alas, I have digressed on an aside so I’ll end it here.


It in fact began much earlier in my opinion but it basically ended with Nixon...


It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

The End of Dollar Hegemony


In these terms it basically means that the federal government had by that time admitted that it was attempting to destroy itself ( and those reason i won't go into now) and your in my opinion blaming the wrong people for making things worse or breaking the whole thing ever faster.




Good post, StellarX.


Likewise


Stellar



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
This discussion is bonkers.

Russia could not defeat Europe in a non-nuclear war if waged today. Any contrary thinking is fantasy. You just need to look at the statistics…

Where do we start?

At sea… How much of Russia’s navy could actually get to sea – considering much of it has been rusting in port since the end of the Cold War due to a serious lack of cash. As a war in Europe would not involve naval forces very much that’s probably good news for Russia.

In the air… Not a fancy air-show this! According to Flight International Nov 2006 “Effectiveness is sapped by aging aircraft – only 20% of the inventory is described by the air force as ‘modern’. Due to lack of maintenance, around a third of the inventory is permanently unserviceable and flying hours are low – around 200,000h a year compared with 2 million in 1990… The service remains plagued by a loss of experienced manpower”.

So, if the Russian non-naval air force is circa 2,000 combat jets, then around 600 are airworthy. That is an air force outnumbered quite significantly by Western Europe. Germany, France and the UK could field just shy of 1,000 modern combat aircraft with trained crew. Add to this Spain, Italy, the Nordic countries, Turkey, Greece, the Low Counties etc…

On the ground… Various web sources seem to agree that the Russian army is circa 400,000 half of which are conscripts. Vast amounts of hardware, with not much modern kit and we all know what happens when older Russian hardware meets the opposition.

Long and the short of it… Russia could never win a fight with Europe. They would never try. They have neither the military capability nor the economic muscle. It would never happen.

Regards



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Edit: My IE keeps dying on me and i keep losing track of what i have responded but at least by re-reading i discovered the initial militant tone of one of earlier responses. I just can't figure out where the whole notion of rotting Russian ICBMs comes from or why that would be last on their list of things to do while seemingly holing out entire mountains and upgrading thousands of air defense systems...


Originally posted by donwhite
1) My 1940s-1950s memory is that the US Gov’t constantly reminded us taxpaying citizens of the large size of the Red Army, its proximity to West Germany and points westward, and how fast the Russian - Soviet - armor could “roll” across Germany and into France.


While apparently forgetting to mention what would happen to the USSR and most of Europe in the American nuclear response.
I think it's well understood on both sides that until the mid 60's the USSR had no or little change to win a strategic war even if they could take most of Europe down with them...


This was done in part to justify the deployment of our 280 mm M65 Long Tom cannon capable of firing off the newest and smallest of nuclear bombs. Tactical instead of strategic. Nuke’em on the battlefield. We even had a brief episode of the “safe” a-bomb, a so-called “neutron” bomb. Touted as a killer of men but a non-destroyer of property. No more Dresden or Berlin.


They experimented ( and as far as i know deployed in limited numbers ) shoulder launched mini nukes ala Starship troopers... I won't argue with the rest as it's in my opinion sufficient to say that the USSR would have been largely contained on the European mainland while slowly getting pummeled into oblivion by US strategic assets.


2) The US never infiltrated the USSR like the reverse. More Russians speak English than Americans speak Russian. Besides, the Cyrillic alphabet has too many letters. Unless we have kept it a secret the highest US official to be accused of cross-dressing in red, was an Assistant Secretary of State for Finance, Alger Hiss.

He was “outed” by Whitaker Chambers, a Time magazine wrier who came in from the cold and confessed the errors of his youth. In the process he named Hiss as one of his contacts. Hiss was involved in the Breton Woods conference out of which came the IMF and World Bank. Hiss would not have been privy to much military or planning intel to forward to the NKVD, MVD or KGB as the case may have been.

I am not altogether yet sure what to make of the whole Alger Hiss saga ( if for no other reason than it made Nixon's career) and simply don't have the time to delve.
I would in fact argue that while the USSR penetrated the US intelligence agencies they had allies in the US that aided them no end; as such this is not so much a Russian success story as more evidence of the west being subverted by those corporate controllers who seem to have benefited most...


Because Hiss was a blueblood liberal, and Chambers was a pudgy man who was a turncoat, it was hard for me to believe him while Hiss kept up his denial until he died. FOIA revelations proved Chambers was telling the truth at least as it related to Hiss.


Does the FOIA really prove it?


Apologetics.
1) You have described the outcome of US anti-communist activity correctly, but in defense of my government, I do not believe such an ulterior motive was at the root of their actions.


I believe they very well knew that the real communist were right back at home and the very same people who were funneling vast funds to build up the USSR. They understood perfectly well what they were up against and the decision makers knew they were destroying freedom overseas while persevering communist at home.


It was fortuitious. It is easier to control a dictat Hey, America was new to the intimacies - or intricacies - of geopolitics.


America were in fact quite adept at geopolitical thinking even if they lacked the means to enforce their grand schemes till late in the nineteenth century and then only because of the terrible position of Spain...


We had studiously avoided Europe and European colonies until 1941.


I think you are forgetting the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico and Cuba all 'netted' during just the Spanish-American 'war' that really was not as Spain could hardly afford to even pretend a defense of those territories even thought they in the end did at terrible cost to themselves from disease and basic starvation.


We knew very few of the players and even less about the game.


I think you you will be surprised to find how much they wanted to even thought realising that they could not make much of a move in the world as it was then...


Our WW2 OSS - Office of Strategic Services - was formed out of FDR’s Oval Office and manned by “Wild Bill” Donovan’s Ivy League classmates. Yes, we had MI, too, but none of it was coordinated. You’ve seen the movie “Midway” I suppose.


Suffice to say i disagree in so many ways as to make a response unwieldy and massively time consuming.



It was not until 1947 that the CIA was formed. Even today, in 2007, we still have complaints that there is little or no cross-agency communications.


The absence of communication is not coincidental or accidental but by design as the CIA works for wall street ( even thought 95% of them might not know it) while the FBI actually attempts work for the United states government, the DIA for the military ( and it's not surprising that you get your best information from them then) while the NASA attempts to make sense of all the conflicting and absent data.



The publicly released number of clandestine ops is 16. But I’d guess there is at lest 1 more, maybe more than 1, that are carried “off books.”


Security agencies or their secret operational groups?


2) We were gullible. We were easily importuned. We were confused, and we were proud, because we knew we - the United States - had produced 90% of the materials that won War 2 for the good guys.


Not difficult to be proud when others did the serious bleeding! I have found that people on the whole are far more easily fooled when they want to be and you can only instill( trough schooling and the media ) so much arrogance before it becomes self defeating.



And we had not reached 100% of capacity! Europe lay in ruins, Japan was destroyed and the rest of the world was properly labeled as 3rd world. British Commonwealth nations other than India and Ceylon excepted.
We had almost all the money, everybody owed us money and we had well over 75% of the world’s manufacturing capacity. We did not have to learn Arabic, nor Chinese, nor Russian. We had what they wanted and they would have to learn American English.


And you may or may not be surprised to hear that it was largely by design.


A golden opportunity missed? Yes, but isn’t that always the case, looking back?


A golden opportunity only in the sense that Americans had so much catching up to do to even European labour standards that the people turned inward and tried to use the opportunity to better themselves which they by in large succeeded in doing by their hard and dedicated work. Unbeknownst to them there were American business interest that were all the while conspiring to rob them of much of that wealth by funneling it into the USSR so that there once again could be a enemy that could serve their aim of suppressing the freedoms and wealth Americans managed despite no small efforts on their part. Americans are still doing relatively well ( but it's going downhill as in so many western countries 40 billion USD to China in just the last few years ) but it's despite efforts to impoverish them and destroy their livelihood. These plots are not being hatched overseas but by the very leaders who loudly proclaim otherwise.


But the Russians were wily. From a position of great weakness, the USSR parlayed our ignorance and our love of and devotion to technology into a rather successful Cold War from 1946 to 1991.


The Russians had absolutely no chance without the massive aid that were funneled to them or the active subversion and destruction of the American armed forces since the 60's...


Hyperbole! Posturing. It’s all true, but we’re talking about Nicaragua, and we had maybe 200 CIA operatives, 300-400 Special Forces types, 10 or 15 planes and choppers and a hall dozen high speed patrol boats not over 40 feet in length. The Democratically controlled Congress had 3 times added language to appropriations bills prohibiting American involvement in Nicaragua.


And i think what he is suggesting is that we saw the use of that shadow governments skirmishing forces in that particular context. That's not what the truly can deploy but what they do not mind exposing to possible public scrutiny; their power ( or perception of it) may be that secure.


Bush41 then VP but as former head of the CIA, and a gung-ho Marine orchestrated an attempt to prevent the popular Daniel Ortega from gaining control of the country. Which, as you know, he was recently elected to be president.


Americans may have very short memories when it comes to those nations that have been terrorised by their wealth but the terrorized tend to have more 'perspective' and in this coming century many chickens will come home to roost. It will however be hard to tell what's what as the American government have proven itself more than capable of killing it's own by the tens of thousands.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Continued


Bush41 had to pardon Casper Weinberg in 1882 to prevent Casper from “dropping” him - B41 - into the wilful violations of law in the I-C Affair. Talk about CYA!


It's always interesting to observe their shameless and hopelessly arrogant behaviour when it comes to aiding their terrorist allies; be it in DC or abroad.


I hate deficit spending because it is 1), an unnecessary generational shift of expenditures to our grand-children and 2)


Not just to them as the Americans are already feels the pains of inflation and the relatively massive cost of the interest on those deficits that are already consuming almost 10% of their tax revenue meaning that the American taxpayer loses 260 BILLION USD worth of roads or whatever not including the highways and ports being sold to Spain and Saudi-Arabia or China.


, it is a socio-economic shift of tax burden from the rich to the poor. That personal view aside, the US has a $12 t. annual economy, and a total worth of around $60 t. Our national debt of $8 t. is not a cause for great concern except as I mentioned above.


The problem with that is that it's not really a 12 trillion dollar economy in any worthwhile sense anymore. That's not to say that most are these days but a growing economy should in my opinion be a economy where goods are actually manufactured and where such jobs are protected by whatever means ( as many bombs as you want; at least you don't have to import them) required. Any nation that lets it's manufacturing capacity slip to it's rivals ( to say nothing of enemies) as either already been defeated or wishes to be.


How much debt can the US sustain? I would suggest twice the current amount, but the real indicator is the interest rate on US 10 year and 20 year bonds.


I think the US can not sustain the current dept as it's selling of national assets , and have been for some time, which is certainly not the action of a nation that has options...


That rate (cost of money) is set by people who are much smarter than I,


That's actually quite presumptuous and while i always attempt to presume that i am not dealing with idiots ( what's the point if your aim is not exploitation) i have my reservations when it comes to some of these people. They quite clearly as just following orders and have only enough intellectual prowess to understand that loyalty is more important than actual skill ( in the given field) and that going along means getting along and results in great wealth.


and who have access to more info than we’d ever guess. That rate is currently in the high 4's and that is good for us. As our credit-worthiness declines, the interest rate will rise. When the rate rises to 6%, it is time for dramatic reforms.


In the 40's the US had unrivaled strategic power ( to say nothing of the strategic potential ) and a good interest rate then would be a great one now. As things stand those measurements are all being hopelessly warped to twist perceptions and things are far worse than they seem. The interest rate on the 10/20 year bonds may seem good but if those who sell it to the world knows that the US might not exist as a nation state by that time what does it matter as long as they can create the perception of strength ( or simply use alternative means like aircraft carriers ) of the USD right now?


A national epiphany on high finance. I was surprised to hear the other day that the US manufacturing sector at $1.9 t. was still the largest in the world.


I am surprised such levels of creative counting is allowed but not that it isn't found credible when investors must choose where to develop industry..... If the US manufacturing sector is really still that 'large' all i will do is point out that it is declining far faster than in the Euro zone which i must say surprised me too.

economistsview.typepad.com...

That and the fact that the Bush people are discussing if working at MacDonald's does not constitute 'manufacturing' which would obviously help them to manufacture better reports for our consumption while consuming manufactured products at MacDonald's 'assemblies'.


www.cclabor.net...


Look at it like this. Bush43 is a primo Neo Con. New Conservative. A line promulgated by the Kristol’s in the 1980s. I call it quasi-fascist but then who am I?


They are quasi fascist , in my opinion, only in that they have been moderated by the system they are attempting to change.


Neo Cons believe the US is “endowed by the Creator” to rule the world.


I don't think any of them really believes that but they know it will be believed by a sizable proportion of Americans who also believe strange other things about the end times and the role the Zionist entity of Israel will play in it...


They further believe that there is a 20 year window of opportunity to re-format the world according to the image the United States wants. That runs roughly from 1991 to 2011.


I believe , based on you can imagine what, they are attempting to regain their former strategic position in the world ( at best) but also that they are not planning on getting most Americans there alive or for the survivors to enjoy the fact that they did...


Because of the US’s ever rising and politically uncontrollable dependence on petroleum, it is essential (to any great power) that its sources be under its hegemony.


I would argue that these dependencies are carefully fostered so as to serve as excuse for US foreign interventions... The US has more than enough local oil for possible centuries to come even if it chooses not to diversity and develop other sources or technologies that have proven themselves. Dependency on such base resources have not been a prime requirement for almost a century and the fact that our governments and science elders chooses to hide this from us speaks volumes as to their motives for humanities future.


Further, in any contest between the PRC and the US, it is advantageous to have our finger on not only supply, but on the price of crude oil and natural gas. The guy with the largest stockpile can set the price the others must follow. See our own J.D. Rockefeller. If you cannot achieve hegemony, then chaos and turmoil is next best.


I am well aware ( i have spent quite large volumes of energy and time in the 'peak oil' forum on ATS , to say nothing of the volumes of time researching ) of at least some reasons and methods of manipulation of oil supplies and oil prices but in my opinion it really is more about restricting supply ( by whatever means possible) than much anything else. Some still believe the retreating Iraqi forces actually had the means time or intent to set fire to Kuwaiti wells...


The Nine Eleven Event was pure serendipity for the Neo Con government of Bush43. War trumps economy. By “playing” the national security theme the Neo Cons won the 2002 and 2004 elections.


They didn't 'win' the 2004 elections but the war situation sure helped them get away with it's theft...


But by 2006 the public was growing weary and Bush43 had lied so much so often he lost credibility. Americans have never been anti-war. We have always been adverse to losing a war. If we can’t win, we quit. Morality has no place in our thinking.


I would say that morality has no place in the decisions of the leaders who takes America to war so frequently. I hate saying morality has no place in these wars as the are largely sold to Americans on 'moral' grounds even if such is hardly ever qualified by the facts... On those grounds i don't believe that Americans don't consider the moral implications but just that the information they are being provided with does provide them with enough excuses ( It's a religion of sorts; any self serving beliefs that can be gotten away with will be) to ignore the true implications.


We admit to killing 1,000,000 Vietnam in our 10 years of involvement there; they say we killed 3,000,000. Do you see a national day of mourning for dead Vietnamese? No, but you see endless invocation of the 59,000 dead Americans.


I don't believe Romans were immoral anymore than i believe Athenians were. We have tribal minds( i believe i can qualify that) and if 3 million people we have never met dies because they happen to be resisting some people that at least comes from the some country as we do....


As in Iraq, we have sustained 3,200 KIA but there is never a reference to how many Iraqis have died to date. Do we care? Hey, we’re a Christian nation! When God’s on your side, you let the Devil take the hindmost!


Probably around 600 000 in the last three years.


We have failed in Iraq. We had no plan for post-May 1. Mission Accomplished Day. You can’t believe that, can you?


They had a plan and that plan involved tens of thousands of Americans getting killed and wounded and the whole country to slowly slip into chaos and CIA/Mossad etc inspired civil war. The idea is to keep the ME completely choatic while pretending otherwise.


But it’s true. Last night on CBS 60 Minutes, the last news program in America, Andy Rooney said the US Military has given 8,000 waivers to new recruits who had felony criminal records, which before Iraq was a disqualifier for service.


If you can not longer pay them enough ( Isn't it up to a 10 000 USD Bonus for signing up for a 2 year term now? ) the next thing you have to do is start sending those who are already on the wrong side of the law and might be coerced into such stupidity.


[edit on 21-3-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

This is how ill-conceived the Gang of Four - Bush43, VP Cheney, Condo Rice and the Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld - had thought this thing through. Bush43 may turn out to be right, when he “promised” last year that the US Armed Forces would be in Iraq at least through January 20, 2009, his last day in office.


I think they will hang around in the streets a few years more and then retreat to their massive bases around that time... It will probably take a few more years to build up the supplies.



He said then that it will be up to his successor when to leave Iraq. (I believe the GOP is pushing him to shorten the time frame, fearing a grand debacle in 2008.)

Thx, S-X, f


You really should stop responding as these responses to your responses absolutely EATS my time.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Hello,

I've been watching this thread develop for quite some time, great posts and great debates.

I read something not too far above me that I'd like to argue.

Stellar X:


I am not talking about lasers or particle beam weapons but GEOPHYSICAL weapons "whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." How will the EU fight when their armored formations are simply bound to a given area by localized but massive torrential downpours? How do you interdict a enemy that can largely control the weather over the front?


First of all, I'm not sure what kind of Russian military clearance you have, but this type of revolutionary military breakthrough would be classified. Posting related links is not relevant, because they are guessing and discussing, such as posters on here discuss HAARP (supposed related American geo-weapon). Don't argue a military victory with an empty gun.

In all honestly, I think you're overestimating the morale and training of Russian pilots and tankcrews, which plays quite a role. Sure, Russian can send quite a few out of date, poor conditioned armored vehicles at their chosen flashpoint, but don't expect them to get much farther. Their newer T-90 variants are too low in the numbers to be of much relevance. This simply is not 1985.

Russia needs to, and they are to quite an extent shrink their armed forces so they can actually modernize their equipment and improve the training of their servicemen.

Otherwise, good posts



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
You will , if only possibly eventually, have to go there!


Originally posted by donwhite
1) I assume BEF stands for British Expeditionary Force and that in France. Of course, in WW1, the Germans did get close enough to Paris they were able to shell it with the longest range artillery piece in the history of modern warfare. 70 km I believe.


So close that the French used Paris taxi's to shift their reserves around at the outset of the battle ( or was it later?)?


Early example of terrorism against the civilian population. The WW2 BEF had to withdraw quickly from Dunkirk, in June 1940.


I would say there are much much earlier examples of terrorism against civilian populations and our history books are filled to the brim with accounts of it!



2) The Russo-Finnish War showed the weakness of the Red Army. It was after the great purge of Stalin who is said to have had executed 3/4ths of the Soviet officer corps from field grade up.


I think the Russo-Finnish war showed that Stalin chose to attack in the wrong season without proper preparation and that his army was hardly in the state to do well given such added complexities. Few people probably know that Stalin chose to send divisions from the South of Russia ( thus not used to such harsh conditions and this winter was apparently quite bad) which simply had no training for such conditions and where not even used to them back home. This all done because Stalin feared Russians that lived closer to Finish territory might not display the required loyalty. I have added up these 'strange' moves by Stalin and considering the situation he created i think the red army fought relatively well and learnt quit fast....


That squandering of talent and the fact the numerically smaller Finns had held the Russians at bay, for the most part, is thought to have contributed mightily to Hitler’s belief that Germany could conquer the USSR to the Urals.


I don't share that opinion but can't at the moment think of a good reason why.
I think Hitler did what he had to after the victory against Britain and France and knew that he would eventually be fighting the SU. Attacking in June 1941 as he ordered the Wehrmacht to do give them the best odds they could hope for but even then it seems that Hitler never really believed the SU could be defeated completely... Hitler imo completely underestimated the armed forces he inherited/created and where preparing to fight the first world war again... When the Wehrmacht proved it could win the wars Hitler started he could not cope ( i am being generous) and misdirected their efforts effectively enough to throw away their best chance in August 1941.


StellarX has a much higher and more expansive view of the RF’s military capabilities and its equipment than I have.


It seems close enough to a complement for me to claim it as such.



First, I do not foresee any war between any of the countries mentioned, in this century.


A century is a very long time but other than that i'll be more than happy if we can keep our freedoms while avoiding those pesky world wars.


It is so far from my vision of the world that I’d make ‘War Contingency Plans’ way, way down on my list of things to do. Wars do not happen in a vacuum. It took years for WW1 and WW2 to become shooting contests.


The first world war may not have been entirely avoidable but the second was very much by design in my opinion and knowledge. I think the signs of the next one have been in the works for some time now with the decline of the US as a global power.


The signs for both ere plainly visible for a decade, but we ignored it then.


Well it's hard to create the conditions for world wars and to keep it all moving in the right direction takes pretty long and persistent and consistent efforts. The people who design these things seem to be well able to manipulate the players and knows all too well how to hide the signs.


I do not see Europeans doing that again. Ever. The RF is much like the PRC, it has so many internal problems that it will not be able to look abroad for solutions.


Europeans are people like the rest of us ( sorry; i think you know what i mean) and the majority can and are being fooled as consistently as the rest of us... The RF seems to have a ally in the PRC and while they hold the whip hand, as you know i believe them to , i doubt there will be western European bloodshed on any serious scale for they are apparently well able to manage their strategic aims without resorting to that...


I cannot contribute to this scenario - the EU vs. the RF - due to biological limits on my imagination.


I wish mine could rule out the same old dumb scenarios that is forced on the usual suspects... It's not that i don't have faith in Europeans but that i think i am beginning to get a grasp of the 'people' ( and i use the term loosely) they are up against.



I’ve pointed out elsewhere the US spends about $800 b. a year on war.


I realized earlier that i did not properly respond to that part of your earlier post... Frankly the spending came too late and spending many dollars can not make up for terrible strategic decisions that were made in the 60's and 70's. What Ronald Reagan started in the 80's was simply a little too late and i don't think dollars will save the US even if the Pentagon seems to think throwing money at it might give the US armed forces to turn enough flanks trough conventional means to affect the strategic outcome of a global war...


And the consequences of war. Even a pacificist like me cannot conceive of cutting the dollar number to less than half. In part due to the $200+ b. to pay interest on the national debt attributable to past DoD expenses.


They may very well be doing what they think will be good enough or it might just be the last desperate effort if only so they may claim the US did not decline for lack of greenback expenditure... Clearly the 'war on terror' is not why they are constructing new multi billion dollar hunter submarines or deploying the JSF/Raptor so if your not asking who they want to fight with it all ( it's one thing if you can afford it but the US clearly could not since the mid 70's) you are in fact, imo, letting your loyalty/pride get in the way of what you should be considering.


I hope we resist the Bush43 proposal to add 92,000 men to the Armed Forces by 2010. If you’ve got’em you’ll use’em.


It's one thing to have something but considering how they are currently being employed i doubt it will matter in the way the British could make it work back in the day before strategic nuclear weapons or their more modern counterparts made navies and blockades so effective.


You may know I am super skeptical about the ABM stuff.


Skepticism is not a problem as long as you can accept the truth whatever it happens to be.
You have in the past suggested that you did not believe in the ABM 'stuff' but never as far as i can recall specified why you doubt the existence of such a system in Russia now when they had Hit-to-kill convention warheads with which they could intercept IRBM's. . I have posted material in abundance and it should not be hard to find...


It is the thing of which boondoggles are made. It reeks of corruption. It is an unarmed pot of gold waiting to have its virginity taken from it by rapacious capitalists aided and abetted by warmongering politicians and their camp followers.


The US ABM scene sure does but mostly because of the intervention of those who would see America destroyed for lack of such defenses. Fact is the US army had a working defense system in the 60's which they knew would save millions of lives in a nuclear conflict and it took high level corruption and deceit to rob America of those defenses.


If I am going to die in a nuclear exchange, I want everyone and most especially the leaders who mucked it up, to die with me.


The problem is that they are unlikely to die ( their flunkies probably will but few flunkies ever know what is going on beside the fact that they are living well and only have to do what their told to keep it that way) in the same proportions the rest of us will given their shelters and general resources to protect themselves with. Frankly i think self defense ( in the classical sense where you destroy the enemy when he crosses the border or retaliate with strategic arms when he attacks you) is the only thing nations should be doing and if the US as nation then engages in more violence due to being so well protected at least we know where we stand and can all unite against the then common enemy. I don't think the world will be a truly stable place unless we entirely do away with the notion of pre-emptive war. If no one ever crosses a border with weaponry there can't be wars and the terrorism can be dealt with in other ways.

Stellar

[edit on 25-3-2007 by StellarX]






top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join