Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

VK,

When many (not just one) carriers get sunk because of the inadaquacy of AEGIS, or aircraft fleet defense failure, then I may be more concerned. If Russia or anyone else resorts to nukes against a carrier, they will find one or more ports and/or airbases vaporized in like fashion within mere minutes. Escelation would possibly follow, along with all the uncertainties of that untested extreme of warfare. For these reasons and more the Nuclear threshold has not been crossed for all of the Cold War for a reason, and that would be that the other side would use them then, and in as much abundance to accomplish the point, or overwhelm any defense. That is "Deterrence". You nuke me, and I WILL nuke your ass. (regardless of what Hollywood elites, and weak kneed liberal pacifistic communistic apologists say or think) Anything up to that point is fair game, and anything else hasn't sunk a carrier for over 60 years now. Carriers will dominate conventional warfare at sea for a long time to come, and I believe the biggest threat to them is still the Submarine.

PS. Cohen may have been secdef but he was also RAND before that. A little history of RAND will reveal a strong Airforce Bias within that think tank which challenged the need for a navy for much of the Cold War. Herman Kahn was also a pivotal RAND player and wrote a lot about it in his books. Thinking about the unthinkable, is but one of these. The Navy and Airforce have had a feud over nukes for decades.





[edit on 16-2-2007 by Hiphar]

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Hiphar]

Good points hiphar.

Recall back to the Cuban missile crisis and America blockading the island after the fact from soviet involvment. The soviets could have nuked our fleet, but we could have vaporized their cities in exchange. Kennedy made it clear that we were willing to go to all out war with russia if they didnt pull those nukes off the island. Russia ofcourse couldnt do a damn thing since our navy was far superior to theirs at the time (still is today) We simply denied the russians access to the island.



[edit on 052828p://1802pm by semperfoo]

Originally posted by vK_man
I read it and it only proves your point that to on USSR capable of winning nuclear war with west and
USA..

I can live with it if that's all your so far willing to take from my activity on this forum.

nonsense , here see the combatant list:
Iran,
United Kingdom,
PR China
en.wikipedia.org...

I originally meant to said that Iran and the USSR were basically ( not entirely but will take time to explain) allied in interest in Afghanistan as the USSR wanted a reformist government that could prevent a return ,or rise to even more power, of western backed radicals.

The former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs "From the Shadows", that American intelligence services began to aid the opposing factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled proudly:

"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap..." [...]"The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

You should read the entire article before judging as Iran was basically supporting factions inside Afghanistan to prevent a Sunni takeover ( as is what happened due to western support) and thus working against US interest and generally in strategic tandem with the requirements of the USSR. As things stand now the Taliban were sworn enemies and the US did Iran a favour by destroying their control of that country.

what there were spy statellites in space in 1950-53(korean war)

THE BIGGEST JOKE OF HISTORY , THE FIRST SAT IN SPACE WAS SPUTNIK IN 1957 .......

Well obviously if there were no spy satellites i could not have meant 1950 or 1953 and i think it would have been more obvious as the recent EDIT 'train wreck' happened in 2004 or so?

says the person, who says that russia is invincible to nuclear strike

I said they would still win a nuclear exchange or a general strategic war but i hardly believe all Russians will survive it or that they are invincible. I would not claim it as i am no longer twelve years old as would have to be any person who makes such stupendously stupid statements.

wow... now this is funny .... as stalinism is rising in russia

So you keep saying but i refuse to consider the rise of public anger and disappointment a 'return of Stalinism' even if many Russians wants him back. I never go along with lunacy and anyone who wants Stalin back either knows no history at all or is working for the same western interest that led to the creation of Stalin and Stalinism.

slightly offtopic ....

Not really as you suggested that no one knows but it is quite clear that no serious western defense and intelligence agency can not be aware of his predictions or that they almost all ( 90% according to some) of his testable predictions turned out to be correct if sometimes only a general sense. How did he for instance know that the reformer would be youngest member of the Politburo?

Gorbachev was the son of Russian peasants in Stavropol territory (kray) in southwestern Russia. He joined the Komsomol (Young Communist League) in 1946 and drove a combine harvester at a state farm in Stavropol for the next four years. He proved a promising Komsomol member, and in 1952 he entered the law school of Moscow State University and became a member of the Communist Party. He graduated with a degree in law in 1955 and went on to hold a number of posts in the Komsomol and regular party organizations in Stavropol, rising to become first secretary of the regional party committee in 1970.

Gorbachev was named a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1971, and he was appointed a party secretary of agriculture in 1978. He became a candidate member of the Politburo in 1979 and a full member in 1980. He owed a great deal of his steady rise in the party to the patronage of Mikhail Suslov, the leading party ideologue. Over the course of Yury Andropov's 15-month tenure (1982–84) as general secretary of the Communist Party, Gorbachev became one of the Politburo's most highly active and visible members; and, after Andropov died and Konstantin Chernenko became general secretary in February 1984, Gorbachev became a likely successor to the latter. Chernenko died on March 10, 1985, and the following day the Politburo elected Gorbachev general secretary of the CPSU. Upon his accession, he was still the youngest member of the Politburo.

www.britannica.com...

Why the youngest member , by such a large margin and not younger but YOUNGEST, of such a patriarchal 'organization'? Is this not a too blatant ( disinformation at it's crudest) KGB attempt to grab headlines around the world?

In 1979, he was promoted to the Politburo as a candidate member, and received full membership in 1980. There, he received the patronage of Yuri Andropov, head of the KGB and also a native of Stavropol, and was promoted during Andropov's brief time as leader of the Party before Andropov's death in 1984. With responsibility over personnel, working together with Andropov, 20 percent of the top echelon of government ministers and regional governors were replaced, often with younger men. During this time Grigory Romanov, Nikolai Ryzhkov, and Yegor Ligachev were elevated, the latter two working closely with Gorbachev, Ryzhkov on economics, Ligachev on personnel. He was also close to Konstantin Chernenko, Andropov's successor, serving as second secretary.[4]

His positions within the CPSU created more opportunities to travel abroad and this would profoundly affect his political and social views in the future as leader of the country. In 1975, he led a delegation to West Germany, and in 1983 he headed a delegation to Canada to meet with PM Trudeau and members of the Commons and Senate. In 1984, he travelled to the UK, where he met with Margaret Thatcher.

en.wikipedia.org...

So interestingly the KGB head picked the 'reformer' so early on? Anatoliy Golitsyn work is nothing other than devastating to the official reality as loudly proclaimed by western and Russian media as it makes clear that coincidence were largely avoided in the reform process as there was a clear script by which the same old people were given the same old general power over their fellow citizens.

even gurion had a a view of the future of world in 1962 that turned to be true ,

Have not really checked it out but i am not surprised as these people are all part of a larger grouping that are trying to form the world to their own image; these insiders are letting us know but we quite infrequently listen and understand what sort of power they must be part of to have brought about the future they told us about.

even protocols of zion has had many objectives achieved ... anyways not worthwhile discussin ... as political insiders plan years before

It's very worthy of discussion as it makes clear that the destiny of humanity seems to be well under the control of a very powerful group ( or groups) of people. It is either that or you must believe they have crystal balls or time travel capabilities.

Stellar

[edit on 17-2-2007 by StellarX]

I can live with it if that's all your so far willing to take from my activity on this forum.

anyways i will be open to your idea on russia , could you provide more sources on future russian warplans , any ways you are a good researcher

It is either that or you must believe they have crystal balls or time travel capabilities.

the insight and great power of money , helps them ... and use of freud's theories to control the population, they weakened the society , if u read vico's theory of nations you will realise that slowi;ly and steadiliy society can be weakened.... to become a democracy, whcih is the weakest phase and precursor to moral decay and destruction, after this society can easily be destroyed as vico warned....

Well obviously if there were no spy satellites i could not have meant 1950 or 1953 and i think it would have been more obvious as the recent train wreck happened in 2004 or so

thanks for clarifying

Originally posted by aaaaa
Barbarrosa was lost before it began for 3 big reasons:

It was not a 'lost' campaign before it began for the following reasons...

1. Hitler failed to reach terms with the British before turning east.

Britain were bankrupt before Hitler turned his attention East and without US lend lease and general aid Britain would have never been able to affect the outcome to a continental campaign against Russia but would have been destroyed quickly had Hitler gained overland access of the ME by means of the Balkans.

2. 20 German divisions, including elite airborne and armor units, were chewed up in North Africa, Greece and the Balkins in support of Mussilini's failed adventures before the attack,

Simply not true as Germany suffered very few casualties and not any large drain on equipment in any of those campaigns before the campaign in the East. Please define what you mean by 'chewed up' as beside for the paratroops ( that got pretty decimated as you say) that could have been rebuilt no significant losses were suffered. In fact North Africa took up all of 1 armored divisions and parts of other divisions to form a army group consisting of men equal to about 3-4 regular divisions as deployed in the East later. They were simply there to boost the effectiveness of the Italian army ( basically to provide leadership and a hard core that could punch trough British defense or prevent breakthroughs) and that they did very effectively being a massive drain on British resources for years to come. North Africa proved that Britain could not even effectively deal with less than half a dozen German field formations and Churchill were quite aware of how this made the British army look in Stalin's book considering the quite more than a hundred he had to put up with right from day one.

which also pushed the starting date back into June instead of early May.

There exists no historical basis for this statement that has is nearly as obvious as you suggest. If you want to discuss it lets but don't pretend wide agreement where there is non.

3 The total failure of Nazi economic management in putting Germany on a total warfighting economy.

It was not a total failure as they apparently turned out to have the capacity to destroy all their European opponents short of the Soviet Union and even there some consistent German tactical and strategic choices would have quite likely netted them Moscow and Leningrad long before the cold came. People love to pretend that Russian soldiers did not freeze to death or that Russian tanks always worked in the snow but when looking at the historical evidence it quickly becomes clear that the Russian counteroffensive were largely made possibly by their possession of Moscow without which such would not really have been possible or very effective.

It is widely accepted that Churchill did everything in his power to delay the opening of a second front in Northern Europe in order to bleed the Russians as much as possible,

Churchill hardly had that kind of power in my opinion even if one would get that impression from reading that nearly 5000 pages he self righteously , and deceptively, calls " The second world war". Since i like Churchill i wont say anything nastier than that and there is certainly far more than one good reason to actually read the series.

which Stalin cooperated with by setting his generals against each other in the dash to Berlin.

Oh really?

D-Day was launched when the real fear became that Russian tanks would reach Gibralter by the end of 1945.

D-day was imo launched so late to ensure that the Balkans and possibly large parts of central Europe ( including even France) would fall to the SU. The idea of the powers that be seemed to have been a continental power in Europe against a continental power in North America but as with all such complex operations reality intervenes and you make do. D-day was in my opinion launched to prevent another 1943 where the SU advanced but at great cost; thus to speed up their progress as added armored formations in the East would have treated the SU's breakthroughs with as much disrespect as before. Without the reallocation of formations west 1944 would have been another year of slow grinding progress for the SU allowing the German economic and technological base to expand far more than it did in 1944.

P-40 and truck shipments to Russia were key elements in the offensives of 1944, prideful communist boasting notwithstanding.

American boasting notwithstanding the true 'second front' of 1944 did not in my opinion change the outcome of the war in Europe even if it ensured that the French still had a free France after and that a few million lives were saved.

The mobility and alternative opportunity afforded by these were critical in Soviet success.

It was critical in terms of their ever deeper penetrations by 1944 but not in terms of their capacity to resist further large scale German strategic offensives.

While the Germans were using horses the Russians had trucks, and with- out source materials at hand, I believe I'm accurate to state that by '44 over 75% of the trucks in the system were American.

The Germans had trucks too , not surprisingly really, but since they were by 1944 on the defensive it's best to give up massive mobility ( the more trucks the quicker supplies can be made to move in respect to advances or general resupply) and focus on the production of the arms to fortify more fixed defenses. If you have one tank and it's advancing against a fleeing enemy it's best you have many trucks to keep it supplied on the advance but on the defense you can stack the ammunition outside the tank and stage your major defensive positions around rail heads. Basically the USSR could afford to build many more tanks because they got so many trucks by lend lease but those factories could very well build trucks instead.

Back to modern affairs:

The secord world war was a very modern war and the next one might not be so different after all is said and done ( nuclear/chemical/biological weapons expended).

I still don't see how an Army manned by unwilling conscripts that finds itself beset with hazing and prostituion scandels (BBC) can be considered an effective fighting force.

We all have our reservations for lack of more accurate knowledge. Compared to the type of conscript the SU won the second world war with one can hardly complain about what they have now. The disparity in training, organization and human material, is most certainly far far less than it was in those days in respect to other NATO powers if not the US itself. Remember that other NATO armed forces routinely showed up what could be done with smaller budgets and better training standards. The Canadians still probably have the best ASW capability in NATO and British submarine training routinely fails American servicemen who did not have problems with the American system. Soviet pilots may have flown less hours than the US but so did the rest of NATO and that certainly did not prevent them from scoring well in exercises...

I'm just saying that whatever they issues they were far greater in 1941 and they were overcome against a army that certainly had better relatively training standards then than the US does now.

I don't see how special forces that botched Beslan and the Moscow theatre hostage crises and provided no definitive victories in Chechnya can be considered world class.

The fact that a dozen or more of the Russian special forces ( in the perimeter ) got picked off by accurate long ranged sniper fire enabling the escape is often talked about as that would indicate that they were up against a forced trained and armed as they were. The Moscow theater crisis were resolved quite effectively in my opinion and we will never imo know for sure if those people were in fact killed by gas ( as reported so widely) or killed by the hostage takers. Whatever the case may be the special forces can hardly take the blame for certain officers who on good or bad authority expected the agent to incapacitate and not kill.

I don't see how a navy that is unable to sortie more than 1 boomer at a time and stage only limited exercises with attack subs can shut off Atlantic traffic. They could not even raise the Kursk by themselves.

Not out on patrol when the world is largely dancing to your tune is hardly a big deal ( the US national debt suggests they better be out patrolling to terrorize everyone into acceptance of dollar hegemony) and as far as western sources go think the Russian navy has 14 active SSBN's that could deploy in times of crisis. If one looks at the weaponry they certainly have more than enough cruise missiles in their submarine forces to ensure that convoys will not reach Europe in time or strength enough to change anything. That is not mentioning their blackjack and backfire aircraft that are more than able to interdict Atlantic traffic at great cost to those who require convoys for survival.

I don't see how an air force that lacks pilots with many hours of flying experience and training defeats one that does.

They will rely mostly on their SAM defenses to deal with aircraft and their own aircraft will have to do not much more than disrupt SEAD/DEAD and ward of B-52's/B2's.

I don't see how an EW /SAM defence system that historically has failed to
even challenge American Air Dominance can be assumed to have solved that problem with new technology.

The Russian air defense systems has never been tested by the USAF and third world nations that never had a chance in the first place can hardly be used as qualification for this statement.

While America is wearing out it's material edge with damaged equipment and casualties in Iraq, and Putin is spending his oil money arming, the gap between U.S and Russian capabilities remains stark.

Not really but it's a popular perception of those who turn to CNN/BBC for the induction of reality.....

In terms of people and systems, there is simply no comparison between these countries.

I disagree for all the above mentioned reasons and basically because such will be mostly negated by the nuclear and geophysical warfare nature of the next world conflict.

Some bold assymetric strategy may be contemplated in the Kremlin as a way to assert it's power; let us hope that these military solutions remain speculative.

It pretty much has been since the early 60's.

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

In the meantime Russia's natural gas is it's greatest weapon, and demographics it's worst enemy.

The next world war wont be about demographics in my opinion as the weapons employed can simply kill human too fast if deployed solely to do so.

"Just before the first tremor at 3:42 am, the sky lit up like daylight. The multi-hued lights, mainly white and red, were seen up to 200 miles away. Leaves on many trees were burned to a crisp and growing vegetables were scorched on one side, as if by a fireball."
Some New Details on China's Quake

Much like Tesla predicted strangely

Stellar

Originally posted by ape
I do agree that russia did prevent army divisions from fighting in western europe but that was only possible because of US efforts to make sure her allies didn't falter.

They did far far more than just prevent them from 'faltering'. Lend lease never, probably, enabled the Russians to 'hang on' as that they were proving relatively adept at doing ( given the German missed opportunities) that but did enable them to go over to general frontal offensives ( north/center or south) by 1943 where otherwise they would have been left to simply absorb German offensives for possibly years to come. Without the aid they might even have signed a temporary ceasefire before the summer campaign season of 43 as they had become quite aware of their relative situation.

you honestly think russia could have defended and made that push had they not been properly supplied?

What push? I think i answered this question above. Survival comes first and for survival you build tin shells with hammers ( Su/stug type weapons or general anti tank guns) , not t-34's. The resources they received enabled them to build offensive weaponry on the scale they did.

it's recorded in history that they lacked the supplies needed to fight that war

They lacked some of the supplies but they also lacked millions of trained men after 1941 which they somehow survived. You should study those opening three months and see what kind of destruction the SU absorbed and consider carefully if they won because of 'supplies' or simple shear willpower enabled by German strategic blunders.

they overproduced the wrong materials needed for war and ended up badly needing equipment they didn't mass produce like they should of for war.

They lost factories and massive stockpiles and it's pretty inevitable that some serious shortages will arise under such conditions. I am not sure why you think this is related to their pre war production choices so feel free..

the troops would have starved because of no means for transport. the winter helped also.

There is always 'some' means of transport and in the end food enough is supplied first even if that does not mean that tens of thousands did not in fact starve or succumb to urge to just get out of the trench and take a bullet in the chest to end the suffering they no longer felt compelled to endure.

I do not see the contradiction you pointed out.

Do you ever?

Stellar

stellarX
I said they would still win a nuclear exchange or a general strategic war

nobody wins in a nuke fight, this is why people question your sanity on these boards.

There is always 'some' means of transport and in the end food enough is supplied first even if that does not mean that tens of thousands did not in fact starve or succumb to urge to just get out of the trench and take a bullet in the chest to end the suffering they no longer felt compelled to endure.

please tell me how the soviets would have transported troops and supplies in any offensive or to defend and send reenforcments?

zhukov and history said it, not me.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by ape]

Putting aside the typically antagonistic tone of Stellar's response to my post, his following points can be addressed:

Britain was bankrupt in 1940- That didn't stop them from deploying forces that tied down Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine manpower and resources, or stop bombing raids on Germany. The 200,000 German soldiers stationed in Norway alone would have been a welcome addition to an invasion of the USSR.

May 15 was the original target date of Barbarossa, consult the index in Guderian's "Panzer Leader" to read Hitlers orginal orders.

North Africa was a small detachment of troops but a major drain on equipment and fuel supply for Germany. As for the Balkans and Greece, Crete alone took the resources of 4 German divisions and cost 4,000 lives and scores of aircraft.You may also read BH Liddell Hart's "The German Generals Talk" chapter 13 for background. This is history, not your dismissive trash talk.

Churchill played a major role in dissuading Roosevelt and Marshall from launching a cross channel invasion in 1943, who were all for it. There are too many sources to quote that refer to this reality.

Stalin set Zukov against Koniev in a race to capture Berlin that cost more than 100,000 Soviet soldiers thier lives in an unneccessary bloodbath, read both general's memoirs or serious Stalin biography to get a flavor of that contest.

Hostage crises that are resolved effectively in your opinion when all or a substantial portion of the hostages are murdered? How sick is that?

14 SSBN could be deployed by Russia in a crisis? Crew training and experience are essential for that to happen, as is equipment that is maintained and reliable. It is fantasy to suggest that a Russian navy that does not exist could do this. They can not even conduct a successful missile test lately.

Extensive Russian air defence equipment didn't seem to work to well for Saddam, did it? In Syria in the 80's the difference between western and Russian systems was damning. To assume that the US airforce does not have effective countermeasures for TOR today is... ignorant.

Challenging conventional wisdom is an essential element of denying ignorance, but simple contradiction via cut and paste will not persuade anyone of the validity of your opinion.

Originally posted by ape
hmm people are missing the entire point, between 41 and 45 russia only produced twenty locomotives, this says it all.

Does that mean they could not have produced hundreds or that they did not need to produce any of their own?

all soviet locomotive plants were converted and busily churning out T-34s and SUs.

Basically admitting that it's not for lack of capacity that they were not making locomotives..

during Cold War all traces of lend lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed, photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines. students could learn about lend lease in two sentences in their textbooks.

How on Earth did the SU sanitize western books to such a high standard considering the fact that the US where the reigning superpower that could destroy the SU at the time? Why were western scholars allowed or forced to alter the historic record and which western faction had power enough to manage such editing?

some key supplies were given that enabled the soviets to concentrate their war production on other areas. for instance aircraft and avaition fuel in general was a decisive help.

Which once again does not mean that they could not have managed without but does suggest that they would have had to fight the war in possibly very different and more conservative ways. The Soviet air force was a tactical air force and as such it played no strategic role and such resources could have been applied to ground units without much ado. The reason the west built up the Soviet air force was simply to allow it to become a credible threat force ( which it most certainly did ) for the planned cold war.

It provided the higher octane fuels that were required in higher performance engines.

The Germans seemed to have done just fine without those fuels....

also trucks and railroad engines enabled them to concentrate production on armour, if this wasnt provided in massive qualntities as shown above the soviets would have had to divert production to these.

Which means they might have very well be forced to focus production on anti tank guns instead of armor which in my opinion would have worked to their advantage no end. Much better to have four or five anti tank guns when you clearly lack the doctrine and training to effectively attack largely making your armored forces into elaborate large scale shooting exercises for German anti tank gunners.

soviet operations such as bagration would have been near impossible without the transport provided and the Soviets would never have been as mobile, allowing the german forces to dance around them...

The Germans where by that stage just rushing around the front trying to cut off and destroy penetrations and were no longer able to 'dance around' the Soviet army even if their tactical acumen never really completely failed to give them local superiority against similar enemy numbers and equipment.

another fundamental point here is that the soviets could concentrate more manpower in their armed forces instead of having them in the production lines.

Which just means Stalin expended them faster and more wastefully in my opinion.

logistics win modern wars and the allies provided the logistic capability to the soviets

Not entirely but in great part by 1944/45 enabled them to stage the massive offensives they repeatedly did.

once again zhukov stated this and confirmed it, this is recorded in histroy. basically what you're doing VK-man is saying zhukov is a liar.

He did not say that and zhukov clearly contradicted himself in the text you quoted.

even before germany invaded russia urgent supplies were sent to the soviets with the help of 50 million dollars credit advanced by the US. russia still owes the US over 700 million dollars but they are so broke they cant pay it and they refuse to pay it. what a joke.

The SU were built up by western banks just like Germany and later Israel were. Russia/USSR could pay those debts but why pay your enemy when it lacks the means to force you? Why pay when it's you who wields the power?

check out this site, i'm sure everyone will dig on it...

www.theeasternfront.co.uk...

And if you just read what i say you wont have to go dig up what in the end agrees with my stated position. From your given source:

"Conclusion" ( my quotation marks)

Overall, lend lease material made a considerable difference to the Russian war effort. Following heavy equipment losses in 1941 and early 1942 and the almost complete relocation of Soviet industry, it helped to reestablish the Russians ability to continue fighting. In the later years of the war it helped to enable and sustain the large mobile operations the Russians undertook as they pushed German forces out of Russia and back into Germany. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, 'Lend-Lease was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance'. Lend lease material accounted for almost 10% of all Russian war material.

You will find the exact same conclusions, opinions and assumptions in my responses on this topic and it's not surprising as that is quite the logical conclusion based on declassified source material we mere mortals have available.

Stellar

Originally posted by ape
nobody wins in a nuke fight, this is why people question your sanity on these boards.

This is why YOU question my sanity and i would like you to state it as your opinion only. Don't presume your own low investigative standards for those few who might actually be interested in the truth.

The USSR planned to fight and win a nuclear war and that's just the fact of the matter.

please tell me how the soviets would have transported troops and supplies in any offensive or to defend and send reenforcments?

Well without those ready built trucks they might not have been able to launch all those offensives of 1943 and 44 and thus simply not required the use of all those trucks. Troops can walk and the massive majority of German troops walked the distance ( however many thousands of km's) between one rail head and the next. If you have to ask these questions of me i suggest you go back to studying as it's all the text books.

zhukov and history said it, not me.

One interview with him in which he contradicts himself if one is to believe the translated text.

Stellar

Originally posted by Hiphar
VK,When many (not just one) carriers get sunk because of the inadaquacy of AEGIS, or aircraft fleet defense failure, then I may be more concerned.

Always easier to wait till things go horrible wrong and everyone agrees on the nature of the failure/mistake...

If Russia or anyone else resorts to nukes against a carrier, they will find one or more ports and/or airbases vaporized in like fashion within mere minutes.

It will take more than mere minutes and Russia is well protected by ABM defenses so limited strikes are unlikely to do more than waste US warheads.

Escelation would possibly follow, along with all the uncertainties of that untested extreme of warfare.

Agreed but you do not design new cities, and alter existing, one's for quick evacuations while providing each new and old factory with sufficient nuclear proof ( air burst at least) shelter space... There is at least some evidence that as much as one in four labour hours since 1960 were spent on civil defense preparation... They do seem to have prepared to fight such a war if came and they were doing their best to ensure that they retained the manufacturing base to win it in the long run.

For these reasons and more the Nuclear threshold has not been crossed for all of the Cold War for a reason, and that would be that the other side would use them then, and in as much abundance to accomplish the point, or overwhelm any defense.

There is no logical reason to suspect that all and any defenses could in fact be overwhelmed and the fact that it's nuclear weapons hardly changes that.

That is "Deterrence". You nuke me, and I WILL nuke your ass.

Deterrence is nonsense as it expects that the enemy is just as unprepared to fight and win a nuclear war as you are. MAD truly is mad and no sane politician ever supported it ( meaning those that did were insane) even if they managed to ensure that it become the standard American policy. The USSR thought the idea quite insane and went about preparing their population and infrastructure so that the society could keep functioning even in nuclear conditions.

(regardless of what Hollywood elites, and weak kneed liberal pacifistic communistic apologists say or think) Anything up to that point is fair game, and anything else hasn't sunk a carrier for over 60 years now.

I suppose that is evidence for something even if im not quite sure what. I can assure you that America's carriers would not have survived much past week two of a general nuclear war as is admitted by at least some high ranking naval officers.

Carriers will dominate conventional warfare at sea for a long time to come, and I believe the biggest threat to them is still the Submarine.

Carriers were obsolete the moment nuclear weapons were invented and the only reason they were kept around was to ensure the US could terrorize the third world at will.

PS. Cohen may have been secdef but he was also RAND before that. A little history of RAND will reveal a strong Airforce Bias within that think tank which challenged the need for a navy for much of the Cold War.

Certainly the US navy such as it was in the late 70's or early 80's would not have been able to protect the convoys or resupply Europe so there might be some truth to his claim even if resupply by air is unlikely to work anywhere near as efficiently.

Herman Kahn was also a pivotal RAND player and wrote a lot about it in his books. Thinking about the unthinkable, is but one of these. The Navy and Airforce have had a feud over nukes for decades.

Obviously American security is a secondary issue to these types ( it's more important to hold decade long food fights over which arm of the military can best defend the country) so i am always wary when it comes to them claiming that this or that 'arm' is best.

Stellar

Originally posted by aaaaa
Putting aside the typically antagonistic tone of Stellar's response to my post, his following points can be addressed:

If you find the truth to be antagonistic ( or just those who try to introduce some?) that isn't something i can help you with but since your mature enough to ' put it aside' we can, per your request, 'move on'.

Britain was bankrupt in 1940-

Meaning they had no substantial gold reserves left ( were in the process of shipping their last reserves in from the 'colonies') and basically selling of their corporate assets to Wall street ( and thus their European masters) for cents on the Pound. They were in fact bankrupt before they even declared war on Germany and at least some scholars have suggested that they HAD to declare war at that point if only to keep up the facade of control and general resistance.

That didn't stop them from deploying forces that tied down Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine manpower and resources, or stop bombing raids on Germany.

Tying down the 'Kriegsmarine' so effectively that German submarines did seriously affect Britains resource 'train' accross the atlantic and from the colonies? Why were the Germans so effectively able to get past the British "blockades' on so many occasions and why did they so often find out where German capitol ships were by noting the impacts of 11/15 inch shells?

The 200,000 German soldiers stationed in Norway alone would have been a welcome addition to an invasion of the USSR.

Men they had in relative generous amounts but the roads and trains can carry only so much supplies and a additional ten badly equipped ( where were the motorised and mechanized elements supposed to come from?) foot infantry divisions would not have changed the outcome in Russia as they won it ( Well the army won it and then Hitler threw it away as at Dunkirk and in North-Africa later) with rather less than they used anyways.

May 15 was the original target date of Barbarossa, consult the index in Guderian's "Panzer Leader" to read Hitlers orginal orders.

I am well aware of the original date and why they could not and did not invade then. Check on the prevailing weather conditions if you really want to discuss this issue as the forces involved in the Balkans were not significant enough to postpone the invasion over.

North Africa was a small detachment of troops but a major drain on equipment and fuel supply for Germany.

It was not a major drain at all as the closeness of success and the consequences for the British empire were quite obvious to one and all. The Italian merchant navy performed very well ( some say heroically; Rommel got the same per day fuel and general supplies as American armored formations got in 1944 in France while he had a chance to win) and even thought the Italian capitol ships could not make themselves count, for various reasons we can discuss later, the escort ships certainly worked very hard to protect the convoys on which backs Rommel basically achieved victory. Germany had 'massive' ( far more than they had engines to use it with ) fuel supplies after the capture of France and low countries and in Russia they frequently supplies themselves from massive Russian rail-head supply depo's that so frequently fell into their hands.

As for the Balkans and Greece, Crete alone took the resources of 4 German divisions and cost 4,000 lives and scores of aircraft.

Do you have any idea how many aircraft the RAF lost and how badly the RN got mauled for their 'efforts' to protect and evacuate the doomed expedition? They lost all their heavy equipment considering the highly mechanized nature of the divisions deployed that is another huge loss that managed to inflict completely insignificant casualties while in Greece.

Mountain and airborne/paratroop ( in some circle's confusing the two will land you in very warm water) divisions are less than half the size of regular divisions and considering the fact that they were designed for these type of specific instances you have to use them somewhere and use them when it matters; having paratroop/airborne divisions and assigned transport sitting around idly
is very costly not to mention the strategic ineptness of allowing the enemy to respond to such strategic 'aces' without them even having been employed. Crete and Greece was a devastating setback for the North-African campaign and if those formations were kept in North-Africa O'Connor ( or whoever they sent after he got captured really; they were 'winning' that fast)

After 10 weeks the Italian Tenth Army was no more. The British and Commonwealth forces had advanced 800 km, destroyed about 400 tanks and 1,292 artillery pieces, and captured 130,000 POWs. In contrast, the British and Commonwealth forces suffered 494 dead and 1,225 wounded. However the advance stopped short of driving the Italians out of North Africa. As the advance reached El Agheila, Churchill ordered that it be stopped, and troops dispatched to defend Greece attacked by the Italians. Also, on January 11, 1941, the HMS Illustrious suffered a crippling dive-bomber attack, allowing the first troops of the German Afrika Korps to begin arriving in Tripolitania (Operation Sonnenblume), and the desert war would take a completely different turn. [3]

Given other setbacks suffered during the early war years, the Allied troops of Operation Compass were highly publicized and became renown as "Wavell's Thirty Thousand," which was used as the title of a 1942 British documentary chronicling the campaign.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Not perfect a source but you can work from there to discover which side were strategically far, far worse off for the Crete/Greece 'debacle' ( and that's being generous in not calling Churchill a inept bumbling fool for his choices in this instance) so early on. North-Africa never needed to have turned into a actual front as O'Connors brilliance ( not the ineptness of the Italians; they did well considering their equipment, training and general situation) ensured that the Brits had a very real chance of taking the vital ports before Rommel ever appeared on the scene.

You may also read BH Liddell Hart's "The German Generals Talk" chapter 13 for background. This is history, not your dismissive trash talk.

This is history as you say and i can quite honestly call this my area of 'expertise' if for nothing other than the shear volume of reading i have done on the topic. Considering Hart's relative sanity i don't have to read that particular chapter to realise who benefited most by the capture of the Balkans and that the late spring of 1941 ensured a later Barbarossa independent of the inept strategic efforts Britain launched in the region at that time.

Churchill played a major role in dissuading Roosevelt and Marshall from launching a cross channel invasion in 1943, who were all for it. There are too many sources to quote that refer to this reality.

And the reason i am not denying that to be the case. That being said a cross channel invasion in 1943 would have been a bloodbath of epic proportions for the Allies and would have probably reigned in Soviet efforts considerably. Churchill probably got it 'right' in that failure ( ANZIO on much larger scale with even less options or simply 'back into the sea') in 1943 would have precluded another serious attempt in 1944 and thus a second world war lasting well into the decade with both sides deploying nuclear weapons.

Stalin set Zukov against Koniev in a race to capture Berlin that cost more than 100,000 Soviet soldiers thier lives in an unneccessary bloodbath, read both general's memoirs or serious Stalin biography to get a flavor of that contest.

So suddenly it takes a Machiavellian plot by Stalin to get a hundred thousand Soviet soldiers killed? Didn't Stalin order Koniev to halt so that Zhukov could catch up and how is that a, 'fair' anyways, 'race'? Sounds more like a insurance policy and the choice to take Berlin suburbs with tank armies ( Zhukov) was not required considering how it could have been reduced by the artillery divisions ( and almost armies one can say) of that time. There was not in my opinion any good operational excuse for the half a million casualties the SU suffered in the operations around Berlin and it's clear that it was a strategic decision ( Stalin's) to capture as much as possible as fast as possible so as to enable a better post war negotiating position with the allies.

Hostage crises that are resolved effectively in your opinion when all or a substantial portion of the hostages are murdered? How sick is that?

So accidents are now murder? You mean the US armed forces murdered at least a hundred thousand Iraqi's in their latest criminal invasion of Iraq?

14 SSBN could be deployed by Russia in a crisis? Crew training and experience are essential for that to happen, as is equipment that is maintained and reliable. It is fantasy to suggest that a Russian navy that does not exist could do this.

It is a 'fantasy' that western defense and intelligence specialist apparently consider 'real' but i really don't care as they don't really need them to ensure their current strategic dominance.

They can not even conduct a successful missile test lately.

So how many missiles tests and launches have they had over the last say five years and what was the failure rate? Lets just compare it to 'world' standards and get some 'facts' involved as i am quite tired of these vague allusions to the 'reality' that the Russian armed forces just evaporated over the last decade.

Continued..

Extensive Russian air defence equipment didn't seem to work to well for Saddam, did it?

So provide us of a list of the 'extensive Russian air defense equipment' SH deployed as well as their deployment age in the former USSR ( and current operational status there) as well as the training standards and general quality of the export equipment in relation to their counterparts in the USSR's service then and Russian service now. Since you want to make the accusations include some facts as i don't recall SH ever deploying Russian theater defense type missiles ( NATO designation SA-2, Sa-5,Sa-10). What they were supposed to do with such equipment in such small numbers against such a overwhelming enemy air force, with no substantial air force of their own to interdict SEAD/DEAD operations against their air defense, is obviously any ignorant persons guess..

In Syria in the 80's the difference between western and Russian systems was damning.

How so as that's not what my reading indicates? Just give us some sources or extracts so i can counter your sourced accusations with information of my own. Vague accusations, and my possibly equally vague denials of them ( assuming largely ignorant readers), serves no one at all.

To assume that the US airforce does not have effective countermeasures for TOR today is... ignorant.

Why exactly is that 'ignorant' when they had such a hard time dealing with properly employed air defenses dating from the 60's in their air campaign against Serbia in Kosovo?

Challenging conventional wisdom is an essential element of denying ignorance,

There is no point in simply challenging conventional wisdom if you have no reason to. The fact that a given facts conventional wisdom status may give the paranoid ample excuse not to believe it certainly does not logically qualify their opinions.? I am not questioning convention because i dislike it ori care to but because it's not the truth or simply too loosely related to reality to be of much use to anyone who has a avid interest in making sense of this world.

but simple contradiction via cut and paste will not persuade anyone of the validity of your opinion.

When you start cut and pasting from primary source material in the same bountiful way i will share my opinion on the general utility of that exercise but until then i will just smile and encourage you to do your part by proving that you are willing and able to source your ideas and opinions from the same 'acceptable' ( i could use a far greater volume from less respected and acceptable sources but rarely bother) western sources i normally employ.

Stellar

Originally posted by vK_man
anyways i will be open to your idea on russia ,

As long as your sharing your opinion/facts on these forums you will probably find it hard to avoid my 'ideas' on Russia.

could you provide more sources on future russian warplans ,

I think the current airplane projects in Russia are largely intended as distraction and while they have improved the general Su-27/Mig-29 airframes no end ( and it's almost unbelievable what they did manage ) it's probably what they will continue to do for another decade or more; don't expect them to deploy , and surely not disclose, a F-22 like complete redesign.

If anything the Ufo's Ronnie found so hard to avoid seeing where never from another planet to start with.

any ways you are a good researcher

Compliments are relative few and far between ( no good deed will be left unpunished etc) so i appreciate it when people appreciate my efforts whatever their eventual decisions on the merit of information or the conclusions i build on it; in other words, thanks.

the insight and great power of money , helps them ... and use of freud's theories to control the population,

Freud could barely control himself ( talk about a one track mind) and i honestly doubt if any use can be made of his general theories beyond the fact that commercialised sex can serve to distract westernized men( and that's probably overly conservative) during their formative years...

Predicting the future is relatively impossible unless you know quite precisely what will take place in scientific and political realms. Since you can not predict the next breakthrough in science and can not predict which political party will do what for what short term gain when the only way to really be able to predict the future is to know the aims of very powerful and influential people. There is not in my opinion a more logical and substantive explanation as to why some people can predict political and societal norms decades into the future; why they are allowed ( to survive really) to let us know about this in advance is at least as interesting in my opinion.

they weakened the society , if u read vico's theory of nations you will realise that slowi;ly and steadiliy society can be weakened.... to become a democracy,

I firmly believe that democracy in it's stronger forms ( no two party dictatorships please) are best for the general citizenry's welfare and while they may not always be able to compete with the central organization that military dictatorship type governments can manage i do not believe they should have to and it's best freedom loving people everywhere fight at that disadvantage for their greater freedoms.

whcih is the weakest phase and precursor to moral decay and destruction, after this society can easily be destroyed as vico warned....

While in competition with regimented and highly organized societies that might be the case but the ( human) will to resist oppression will always be far greater than the will to oppress our fellow man. Without the encouragement of state propaganda ( including the church), the mass media and largely falsified accounts of the history of the planet people would simply lack the means by which to explain away or accept the suffering they impose on others and will , once gained, slowly lose the will to keep on doing it. The problems with all past great empires is that they were built by the sword and or on the backs of others and the people or rulers slowly forgot how their wealth was in fact achieved or just eventually figure out the cost to others. That being said the exploited have every reason to learn from the experience and organize themselves to better resist such efforts and thus we have arrived at very regimented societies we have to this day...

hanks for clarifying

I can't without a doubt prove that it was a nuclear weapon ( or that it was American) but what i will say for sure is that it had nothing to do with a train accident..

Stellar

I think the current airplane projects in Russia are largely intended

i said future war plans not warplanes , i read a article on spanish version of RIAN NOVOSOTI that s-400 may replace the A-135 system, also s-400 can fly to a altitude of 60 km

The missile flies 60 km up and starts attacking the target from this height,” Yury Solovyov explained.
english.pravda.ru...

though speed and capability here in this source is understated ...yuri solovyov is a colonel general in russian strategic forces

Freud could barely control himself ( talk about a one track mind) and i honestly doubt

clearly you do not know about how is theories implicitly destroyed the moral foundations of society ,

The Century of the Self
The Untold History Of Controlling The Masses Through The Manipulation Of Unconscious Desires

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

THE CENTURY OF THE SELF

Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty.

To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?

The Freud dynasty is at the heart of this compelling social history. Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis; Edward Bernays, who invented public relations; Anna Freud, Sigmund's devoted daughter; and present-day PR guru and Sigmund's great grandson, Matthew Freud.

Sigmund Freud's work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.



Happiness Machines
Part One



One: Happiness Machines

The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion, using every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement and outrageous PR stunts, to eroticising the motorcar.

His most notorious coup was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. It was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made happy and thus docile.

It was the start of the all-consuming self which has come to dominate today's world.



The Engineering of Consent
Part Two



Two: The Engineering of Consent

The programme explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses.

Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise - that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had led to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again they set out to find ways to control this hidden enemy within the human mind.

Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays, provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business, and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that lurked just under the surface of normal American life.



There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads:
He Must Be Destroyed
Part Three



Three: There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed

In the 1960s, a radical group of psychotherapists challenged the influence of Freudian ideas in America. They were inspired by the ideas of Wilhelm Reich, a pupil of Freud's, who had turned against him and was hated by the Freud family. He believed that the inner self did not need to be repressed and controlled. It should be encouraged to express itself.

Out of this came a political movement that sought to create new beings free of the psychological conformity that had been implanted in people's minds by business and politics.

This programme shows how this rapidly developed in America through self-help movements like Werber Erhard's Erhard Seminar Training - into the irresistible rise of the expressive self: the Me Generation.

But the American corporations soon realised that this new self was not a threat but their greatest opportunity. It was in their interest to encourage people to feel they were unique individuals and then sell them ways to express that individuality. To do this they turned to techniques developed by Freudian psychoanalysts to read the inner desires of the new self.



Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
Part Four



Four: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

This episode explains how politicians on the left, in both Britain and America, turned to the techniques developed by business to read and fulfil the inner desires of the self.

Both New Labour, under Tony Blair, and the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, used the focus group, which had been invented by psychoanalysts, in order to regain power. They set out to mould their policies to people's inner desires and feelings, just as capitalism had learnt to do with products.

Out of this grew a new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism. One of its stars in Britain was Matthew Freud who followed in the footsteps of his relation, Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations in the 1920s.

The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of individual. But what they didn't realise was that the aim of those who had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the people but to develop a new way of controlling them.



www.informationliberation.com...

Predicting the future is relatively impossible unless you know quite precisely what will take place in scientific and political realms.

really???? I doubt that , looking at the protocols of Zion , the way the instincts of humans are manipulated to destroy society and weaken the moral foundations through long term use of scientific methods on global scale

I firmly believe that democracy in it's stronger forms ( no two party dictatorships please) are best for the general citizenry's welfare

clearly it should be understood, i have no faith in democracy (shi-t-ocracy ) and am a supporter of a technate i.e. a technocracy , i advocate the rule of technology , not rule of people

Without the encouragement of state propaganda ( including the church)

don't drag the religious institutions in this , it was because of power hungry aristocrats ... religious institutions were the glue of moral values which the international bankers have successfully destroyed

it's best freedom loving people everywhere fight at that disadvantage for their greater freedoms.

perfect democarcy=perfect slavery
as vico said ,democarcy will be replaced by theocracy, and you know what the protocols of zion ,stated that after destruction of religion and establishment of atheism and democracy and destruction of moral values, a jewish theocracy(khazarian empire type ) will be brought in

It is a 'fantasy' that western defense and intelligence specialist apparently consider 'real' but i really don't care as they don't really need them to ensure their current strategic dominance.

american navy could not handle HMS gotland , a swedish SSK , and it is believed that russian LADA SSK and kilo SSK is quieter than hms gotland

"According to Swedish newspapers, in training exercises the Gotland has sunk our most sophisticated nuclear submarines. But perhaps even more disconcerting, it reportedly sunk our largest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Reagan"
www.nbc4.tv...
www.navy.mil...

the subs sunk(hypothetically) in training exercises believed to be seawolf and los angeles class , i.e this single SSK won against the entire carrier group and american nuclear subs like a one man army

WRM: Speaking of human rights, you have talked with me in the past about how “ethical inflexibility”, meaning the inability of the West to move to an “advanced” stage of moral standards, is in fact hindering the West. Can you clarify this?

IK: Time to abandon ethical inflexibility or die...Ethical inflexibility prevents the West from a new technological revolution. Western countries refuse to consider genetic experiments with human beings. Recently I got a message from my comrade who is working in MGF (Moscow Governmental University—brain center of the Soviet Bloc). They said they are doing experiments on genetic modification of newborn children. They have bad equipment, but they already have some results.
Same comes with war plans. The Soviet Bloc is calculating the victory conditions of nuclear war, while the West refuses to even consider that nuclear war may have winners. If the West wants to counter the Communist World, it has to abandon ethical inflexibility
www.worldthreats.com...

properly employed air defenses dating from the 60's in their air campaign against Serbia in Kosovo?

i think there have been claims by NATO that russia sold them advanced jammers , this i think was confirmed by colonel krutov

WRM: Can you explain your successes in your work, and why you’re so confident in your Marxist-Leninist and Communist philosophies before we go any further?



IK: I predicted the American invasion of Yugoslavia and the terrorist acts of September 11th (my only mistakes there were was the wrong date and the wrong first target of the American invasion—after all, Usama Bin Laden was America’s loyal agent—but month, year, and approximate number of deaths was correct). I am one of ASNSR’s top analysts, founder of the AD-13 Russian hacker communist alliance and the ATF-BTR techno-fanatic brotherhood army (specialized in electronic warfare: jammers of radars and IFF systems—we took part in making jammers that orchestrated “friendly fire” among American forces in Yugoslavia and Iraq). I wrote many books (scientific and science fiction), so I am widely known on Russian resistance sites

www.worldthreats.com...

[edit on 7-3-2007 by vK_man]