The American Grand Strategy

No one ever - prior to 1991 - bothered to wonder why the stores in Moscow were bereft of shoes.

Are you absolutely sure of that? Are you sure that prior to the collapse of the state, stores were empty in Moscow?... I wouldn't be so sure...

posted by jmlima

Are you absolutely sure of that? Are you sure that prior to the collapse of the state, stores were empty in Moscow?... I wouldn't be so sure... [Edited by Don W]

I meant that as a rhetorical statement, not as a proposition. I do however believe it is true. My sister and mother traveled to Moscow and Leningrad in 1978. They were taken on the obligatory tour of the department store, GUM - (Glavny Universalny Magizin) but even then, 1978, there were a lot of vacant shelves. Escorted by Intourist, I believe.

The CIA always hyped the Soviet Union into a super power when it was in reality only a ‘wanna be’ super power. That overestimation of the Soviet Union’s industrial capacity proved embarrassing to the CIA in 1989-1991, when it became obvious the CIA had made that potentially fatal error of believing its own propaganda. Astute observers outside the US did not make that error but you can’t tell American’s anything. If it’s not on FOX, it’s not. Not when you have more super carriers and atom subs than anyone! Which proves we are the smartest?

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by jmlima

Are you absolutely sure of that? Are you sure that prior to the collapse of the state, stores were empty in Moscow?... I wouldn't be so sure... [Edited by Don W]

I meant that as a rhetorical statement, not as a proposition. I do however believe it is true. My sister and mother traveled to Moscow and Leningrad in 1978. They were taken on the obligatory tour of the department store, GUM - (Glavny Universalny Magizin) but even then, 1978, there were a lot of vacant shelves. Escorted by Intourist, I believe.

The CIA always hyped the Soviet Union into a super power when it was in reality only a ‘wanna be’ super power. That overestimation of the Soviet Union’s industrial capacity proved embarrassing to the CIA in 1989-1991, when it became obvious the CIA had made that potentially fatal error of believing its own propaganda. Astute observers outside the US did not make that error but you can’t tell American’s anything. If it’s not on FOX, it’s not. Not when you have more super carriers and atom subs than anyone! Which proves we are the smartest?

2 notes:

1- If you meant it as a rethorical statement than, you should be carefull to state it, propaganda times are now well behind us, or should be...

2- Re CIA, it's even worst than that, if you see the Army manuals that contained the data of , for example, Soviet fighters, and compare that data with the realitites we now know, you'll see that for years the peoples of the Western countries were propaganded into fear of a paper bear...

[edit on 25-11-2006 by jmlima]

i wouldn't believe that, the USSR had and still has more tanks and more nukes than any country ont he faceof the earth, hell they have 30k or 15k tanks or something like that i don't really remember now , and 30k nuclear warheads, that's enough to wipe out the earth 1000's of times, wherease the US has 8k nukes and 8k tanks i think. production of military hardware and equipment int eh SOviet union was very great, maybe even greater than that of the US, i don't really know. so you can't say that the USSR production wasn't high, or that it was a "wanna be" superpower, because it has teh capability of destroying any country on the face of the earth even the US, even though that might relate to Mutually assured destruction. it had the capability of overruning europe with tanks, that was a main concern of the US at that time, that a Soviet breakthrough would happen, which would enable the USSR to overrun western europe with tanks!

posted by INc2006

I wouldn't believe that . . USSR more tanks more nukes than any country they have 30k or 15k tanks I don't remember now , and 30k nuclear warheads, enough to wipe out the earth, whereas the US has 8k nukes and 8k tanks I think. Production of military hardware and equipment in the Soviet union was very great, maybe even than the US, I don't really know. so you can't say the USSR was a "wanna be" superpower, a main concern of the US at that time, that a Soviet breakthrough would happen, which would enable the USSR to overrun western Europe with tanks! [Edited by Don W]

1) In Re Nukes. I thought after 1991 the US and USSR or RF, agreed to reduce their nukes to 5,000 and for some reason, to exclude another 3,000 from any accounting. Outside the Agreement.

2) As for tanks, the RF is landlocked. It may well have many tanks but they are useless in projecting geopolitical power outside Eurasia. They have no way to get them anywhere they can’t drive them to. Based on their current military budget, I expect 80% of their tanks are not combat ready. Russia is now a military power on par with Germany and France. Which is good. Very good. No one is going to attack Russia, so why waste money on things you don’t need?

And there is a strong temptation - nay irresistible - to use what you have. Ask the now sacked and discredited Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld.

3) We know the quality or lack thereof of the once vaunted Russian Navy. I expect the same is true of the Russian Air Force. I’d expect they are cannibalizing half of their planes to keep the other half in service.

4) American propaganda made the Ruskies into bad actors post War 2, but we over here hardly know that Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were allies of Germany, Italy and Japan, and fought in the June, 1941 invasion of the USSR. After losing 10-25 million - depends on who is counting - in their Great Patriotic War, they were not about to tread lightly in Budapest, Bucharest or Sofia. They cheated on Czechoslovakia. God put Poland in the wrong place between Germany and Russia. Tito had his own plan for Yugoslavia. I don’t know why they gave up on Austria. Greece and Turkey was overreaching for Stalin. His reach exceeded his grasp. The Allies chased Stalin out of Iran. And Kamchatka for all its ballyhoo is still a desolate place too far north! And too far east.

If it was not for the United States of America, John Lennon’s song, “Give Peace A Chance” could prove prophetical. We need a world with enough kohunnies to embargo the US of A until it shuts down its war machine.

Originally posted by INc2006
i wouldn't believe that, the USSR had and still has more tanks and more nukes than any country ont he faceof the earth, hell they have 30k or 15k tanks or something like that i don't really remember now , and 30k nuclear warheads, that's enough to wipe out the earth 1000's of times, wherease the US has 8k nukes and 8k tanks i think. ...

Nope, you wanna get your figures right:

We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal.

Source:

www.thebulletin.org...

As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.

Source:

www.thebulletin.org...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Added 'ex' tags

[edit on 26/11/06 by masqua]

posted by jmlima

2 notes:
2- Re CIA, it's even worse than that; if you see the Army manuals that contained the data, for example, of Soviet fighters and compare that data with the realities we now know, you'll see that for years the peoples of the Western countries were propagandized into fear of a paper bear . . [Edited by Don W]

Lee Harvey Oswald was a ground radar operator sited in northern Japan. American ground radar could look over the horizon up to 1,500 miles. The USSR had nothing close to that. Because radar waves travel in a straight line, mostly, it is a great technological achievement to “look over the horizon.” It is done by brute power. Actually, about 5% of radio waves will bend to gravity and follow the earth’s curvature. If you need a 1000 watts strong signal to get a return signal strong enough to be useful, then you must transmit a signal 20 X that strong. Which causes lots of heat. We did it, they did not.

When a famous incident of a Foxbat - MiG 29 - pilot defecting, we found the plane equipped with vacuum tube electronics while we were into 2nd or 3rd generation of solid state equipment. You cannot support phased array radar with vacuum tubes.

We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.

That’s good for Stage 1. Now we need to go to Stage 2 and reduced the number of nuclear weapons by 80%. Then, all nations, including Israel, North Korean and Iran, if applicable, must join us in Stage 3, when there will be 100% nuclear disarmament.

didn't the i think they were called START agreements abandoned by the US in the 90's or the early 00's, i think russia has way more nukes thna 5k believe me, and plus russia has been hiding much development since Putin took over and even in the 90's. there is a thread named "the military strength of russia(and compared to other nations)" i believe, i posted much in it, as did many others, it twists and turns and it's not all about the military it also talks about politics, etc. but it might be a good thread to read about the russian military in. i'm not specialized in the military and haven't done the necessary research, however from what i have looked at over the internet, many times i believe the russian military is much stronger than being on par with germany or france, the RF is definatly able to project it's power all throughout eurasia and probably into North America. there is a very close shortcut called the bering strait you know into Alaska. even though it's far up in the east, still it can be reached if need be and en masse...

posted by INc2006

I think they were called START agreements [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] abandoned by the US in the early 00's [by Bush43]. I think Russia has way more nukes than 5k believe me, and plus Russia has been hiding much development since Putin took over and even in the 90's. There is a thread named "the military strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)." I posted much in it, as did many others, it twists and turns and it's not all about the military it also talks about politics, etc. but it might be a good thread to read about the Russian military in. I’m not specialized in the military and haven't done the necessary research, however from what I have looked at over the internet, many times I believe the Russian military is much stronger than “being on par with Germany or France” The RF is definitely able to project it's power all throughout Eurasia and probably into North America. There is a very close shortcut called the Bering strait you know into Alaska. Even though it's far up in the east, still it can be reached if need be and en masse. [Edited by Don W]

OK, i6, I do tend to employ hyperbole. For emphasis only. I am a peace-nik as we were called in the 1960s. Our DoD budget is $455 B. To that you must ad about $120-$150 B. this fiscal year - October to September - for the Afghan and Iraq adventures which are “off budget.” I call them “adventures” because they do not rise to the quality level of “campaigns.” On top of that goes the $35 B. for the VA. Veterans Administration. On top of that you must add about $200 B. which is the war part of our annual debt payment of about $330 B. This means America spends about $825-$850 B. per year on war and related items. Out of a $2.75 T. budget. When I call for cutting the war budget by half - euphemistically re-named Defense in 1947 - that would free up $400 B annually. To do those things at home and around the world that would eliminate the raison d’etre of the Terrorists. Fighting terrorism smart, not dumb. Provided we must begin with a 2 state solution for the Arab-Jewish Problem in old Palestine. As in 1967.

But alas, that is too simple. And no money in it for all the Halliburton’s of the world. And our electoral system so desperate for private money it will do their bidding despite their better judgment. Gloomy, I guess. And


[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]

in ther early 1990s there could've been a solution to the problem of palestine, but the bastards jewish fanatics in israel killed rabin, and with him dead, the death of teh peace process was also spelled. watch my remark jewish fanatics, not jews, so don't think i'm making hate speech here. anyway i only knew that the military budget was about 400bil, thanks for inofrming me with the other 400bil, not i'm definatly gonna make my brother vote democrat in two years(i'm only 14, and only have work authorization, working on getting the green card, so are all my family except my parents, my big brother has the citezinship..). anyway let's get back to the real topic of this thread please...

Originally posted by INc2006
didn't the i think they were called START agreements abandoned by the US in the 90's or the early 00's, i think russia has way more nukes thna 5k believe me, and plus russia has been hiding much development since Putin took over and even in the 90's. there is a thread named "the military strength of russia(and compared to other nations)" i believe, i posted much in it, as did many others, it twists and turns and it's not all about the military it also talks about politics, etc. but it might be a good thread to read about the russian military in. i'm not specialized in the military and haven't done the necessary research, however from what i have looked at over the internet, many times i believe the russian military is much stronger than being on par with germany or france, the RF is definatly able to project it's power all throughout eurasia and probably into North America. there is a very close shortcut called the bering strait you know into Alaska. even though it's far up in the east, still it can be reached if need be and en masse...

A couple of notes:

- If you to want to work on assumptions then I can tell you that in reltion to Russia no number can be definitive , but if you want to put in some numbers always go for the smaller one, this is to account to the fact that the vast majority of the Soviet complex in Russia's hands just grew old, it was hardly maintained and only with the rise of Putin did the military strenght (quality most of all) begin to be considered again, they have the techonology, but certainly they cannot field the numbers quite simply.

- Re the Russia capacity to 'project' his power, that is hardly the case again, for as much as they want they cannot do it since they don't have at present any serious logistical capability.

They are growing , but still not there.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by jmlima]

i think if in a state of war, especiallya defensively, if need be, the russians will be able to project enough power to halt and defeat the aggressor. Russia i believe can at least project it's power all through europe, and almost all through central, far east and middle eastern asia, and the middle east.

Originally posted by INc2006
i think if in a state of war, especiallya defensively, if need be, the russians will be able to project enough power to halt and defeat the aggressor. Russia i believe can at least project it's power all through europe, and almost all through central, far east and middle eastern asia, and the middle east.

Defense is not the same as offense as you know, in defense you don't need to project forces , you just need to defend your own turf, and Russians can excel at that as history proved again and again. If you exclude a nuke war, Russia would not be able, at present, to walk through western europe until the atlantic, they have serious difficulties everytime they do a large scale military exercise let alone in a real combat situation. Besides , Russia has no interest whatsoever in rolling over western europe, we are great clients of their gaz and oil, why ruin good business? I wouldn't be so sure though if we were speaking of Kazakhistan and the likes... But while there are US bases in there they will be safe.

Grand strategy? There is no grand strategy.

There is alot of hit and miss.
Trying to adapt economicaly to changing trade opportunities and external threats, real and imagined. Wanting to describe America's policies over the centuries in terms of a grad stategy is the same as wanting to confer it with ominscient powers. Where defeats like Vietnam are just seen as lost battles on the inevitable road to.....What?

There is no direction, just the effort to survive. Every institution floats propaganda, ours uses terms like liberties and freedom and democracy, but there are plenty more countries where day to day life involve many more liberties and freedoms. And a higher quality of life for ordinary citizens.

Above all your desire to see yourself as belonging to some omniscient special institution reflects your inability to find value in yourself without the needing the crutch of membership to a mythical and non existant institution that you regard the United States as.

With the mid term elections and the inevitable disaster in Iraq that must surely follow, Americans will be hard pressed to maintain the illusion of a grand startegy or even an america with a future they would want to partake in.

posted by Robert S

Grand strategy? There is no grand strategy. Trying to adapt economically to changing trade opportunities and external threats, real and imagined. There is no direction . . [Edited by Don W]

I disagree. The Thirteen Colonies expanded to encompass the better part of the North American continent. The best endowed 3 million square miles on the planet. The Americans moved inexorably from 1789 to around 1867 when the task was finished with the purchase of Alaska. We first took then paid for Florida, bought the Louisiana Territory, annexed Texas, set its border on the Rio Grande in the Mexican War and also took what is now our southwest and California. Protestant missionaries turned greedy finagled the US into taking the Kingdom of Hawaii more for the natives land and pineapples than for their souls. Plus, Hawaii gave the US Navy a coaling and watering station as we looked towards the Pacific. We took Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Midway and other Pacific islands from Spain. We took Cuba too, but gave it back when it seemed not to be a profitable place to be. A similar end came to our adventure in the Philippines, but we kept it long enough to own the valuable parts.

I therefore disagree that we had no Grand Strategy then. We perpetuated our “empire” even until today. The recent election in Nicaragua has brought about the quite revival by Buish43 of the infamous US Army School of the Americas. Every country south of the Rio Grand must surely have shuddered! We will not go peaceably into the night. Socialism is a no no in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist exploitation of resources and humans is a yes yes in our part of the world. Only the USSR kept us from invading Cuba a second time, with the USMC. Wherever American dollars go, the USMC is not far away! Our enforcers. Did you know every US Navy ship - maybe not subs - has a contingent of Marines onboard to keep order? In case the sailors should get restive.

Every institution floats propaganda, ours uses terms like liberties and freedom and democracy, but there are plenty of countries where day to day life involve more liberties and freedoms . . And a higher quality of life for ordinary citizens . . Above all your desire to see yourself as belonging to some omniscient special institution reflects your inability to find value in yourself . . the elections and the inevitable disaster in Iraq that must surely follow, Americans will be hard pressed to maintain the illusion of a grand strategy or even an America with a future they would want to partake in. [Edited by Don W]

I think you are being unduly pessimistic, Mr R/S. Because we are a polyglot mixture of peoples from all around the world, we have more human resources than any other country. The “Days of Glory” for America would be 1945 to 1975. The era of the blue collar middle class. For a variety of reasons, those days and the American middle class are over. Our own circumstances have undergone a sea change since 1975. Where once almost every American identified himself as a member of the “middle class” now more and more we are coming to see ourselves as member of the “lower class.” A class of Americans with such little political clout they cannot raise the minimum wage for a decade which the rich and famous have seen their incomes rise by 50%. That is powerlessness.

We desperately need a new social contract. Universal access to health care is essential. And the rub there is this, we already spend enough money on health care, the issue is how to re-distribute that money. That is the issue that will try men’s souls!

the whole concept of Capitalism is corrupt, i mean yes it's good until you have an exxon mobile type of company, then capitalism is turned to an oligarchy. however the true democracy would come from socialism, and socialism i would like to point is much different from what most people think, socialism allows freedom and democracy, and free enterprise, the only difference between it and capitalism, is that the government actually has hand in the basic needs of the citizen like energy, water, sewage, electricity, etc. (ie. a public sector for these things). that way, there are no companies that take away all our money, just like in the US right now....

posted by INc2006

The concept of capitalism is corrupt; I mean yes it's good until you have an Exxonmobil type of company, then capitalism turns into an oligarchy.
[Edited by Don W]

Capitalism is inert. Laissez faire OTOH, is what you and I are complaining about. Capitalism without social responsibility or public accountability. It was admired in the period called the Gilded Age, the last third of the 19th century. It was also called the era of the “Robber Barons.” The Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Carnegie’s, the Vanderbilts, the Pullmans, the Fords, the Jays and the Goulds.

You should recall America had no income tax until 1913. You cannot have a modern government without an income tax. The pro slavery Constitution also banned income taxes. Lincoln persuaded Congress to impose one in the Civil War but the Supreme Court overturned it. The US operated on import duties, the sale of land, and the profit governments make in stamping out coinage or printing money which name escapes me at the moment. In other words, it may cost a government 5 cents to make a dime. Or 10 cents to make a quarter. The “gain” is profit to the government. Of course, any paper money not backed 1 to 1 in specie is 99% profit. Edit: The word is "Seignorage." www.abelard.org...

The 16th Amendment was proposed to the states in July, 1909. Republican and Populist William Howard Taft was president. It was approved in February, 1913. Aside. It is very interesting to note the first states to ratify it were Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina. After Illinois, the next states to ratify were Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia and Texas. All but Illinois were in the "Solid South" and after Reconstruction ended, were solidly Democratic. States not noted for their liberality, I wonder why those states jumped onboard so quickly?

True democracy would come from socialism, and socialism I would like to point is much different from what most people think, socialism allows freedom and democracy, and free enterprise, the only difference between it and capitalism, is that the government actually has a hand in the basic needs of the citizen like energy, water, sewage, electricity, etc. (i.e. a public sector for these things). That way, there are no companies that take away all our money, like in the US right now.... [Edited by Don W]

Well said, Mr INc2006! I'm on your side.


[edit on 11/30/2006 by donwhite]