Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

End all be all...Russia's Status as a Super Power

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Lets not just throw the word 'superpower' out just for kicks here ppl. Russia sits on a massive arsenal of WMDs sure. But can russia maintain those WMDs? No they cant.


Yes they seem to have done just that and there is no solid evidence that they did not operate sufficient nuclear forces today to ensure the destruction of the US as a modern industrial nation. This is assuming the absence of large scale deployments of direct energy weapons in the US as they certainly could have just as the USSR seemed to have.


It takes alot of $$$ in order to mantain a nuclear arsenal such as russia has, some 20,000 nukes i believe. Thats the difference between america and russia. We can afford to mantain our WMD stash. Russia can not as Russias WMDs are detetirorating as we speak.


They certainly have sufficient resources to build new nuclear missiles and strategic submarines as well as deploy and upgrade hundreds of air defense systems so why on Earth assume they would do that BEFORE they keep their strategic forces well maintained? The logic is simply flawed and the type of evidence that would prove your assertion is most certainly not to be found in any documents or sources i have seen or heard about.


www.dhushara.com...
The link above link explains the tensness that still remains to this day between the two former advisarys. America seems to have the clear advantage in anycase.


Can we keep our source material based on official documents please as i have no need to rely on the opinions of non defense industry or intelligence specialist to defend my views. If you make specific claims based on the information in that article do so but frankly i am not going to dignify all those badly research allegations AGAIN as i keep doing it while some just avoid them.


Weeks earlier the Norwegians had duly informed Russian authorities of the planned launch from the offshore island of Aiidoya, but somehow word of the high-altitude experiment had not reached the right ears. That frightening incident (like some previous false alarms that activated U.S. strategic forces) aptly demonstrates the danger of maintaining nuclear arsenals in a state of hair-trigger alert. Doing so licightens the possibility that one day someone will mistakenly launch nuclear-tipped missiles, either because of a technical failure or a human error-a mistake made, perhaps, in the rush to respond to false indications of an attack.


Once again the Norwegian missile were based on a old long or intermediate range ballistic missile first stage and thus looked exactly like a ballistic missile which the Russian EW picked up and promptly acted on. There was never any danger of a nuclear war breaking out as the Russians quickly discovered that there were no large scale attack and thus nothing to fear.


This is what is really worisome. Well we just started WW3 by studying the Aurora! NICE!!! I wouldt be suprised if Al Quada has nukes right now.


According to Stanislav Lunev mini nuclear weapons are already em placed all over the US and being manned by KGB and other Russian agents. To think that Muslim terrorist operate such weapons are shear delusion fantasy and the Russians are probably doing their best to encourage these unfounded rumours.


Alls they would have to do is go to russia and get the right mob boss and if the $$$ is right im sure they could get there greasy little hands on a nuke from russia. That country is being run by mobs today. Ever heard the saying, Thirdworld power dressed in superpower clothing? Thats what russia is right now. A 3rd world power who has the toys of a superpower.


You can have any opinion you like and it's pretty clear that is all your about. The Russian civilian economy may be dominated by such powerful groups but that is not the case for their armed forces and i think we should rather look at the missing Pentagon funds before we point fingers at the so called Russian mafia influence over their defense establishment.


And china? Dont make me laugh. China wouldnt side with russia in a nuclear exchange because china needs the US to buy all there crappy toys for economic benefit.


China already sided with Russia and it's too bad you do not know about it. When last did the Chinese economy depend on toy exports to the US markets? Have you done any research or are you reading these myths from a prepared sheet?


If the US were to fall the EU (chinas largest customer) would lose theyre largest trading partner (the US) What do you think happens to china if china were to lose both of there largest customers?


Their growth would slow down by a few percent per year and they would have to focus more on development of their markets in the East and third world. In the resulting power vacuum ( absence of EU and US as functioning regions) they would probably be able to make the deals they require to continue trading. The US can not afford to waste nuclear warheads on China as they will need each and every one they can spare against Russia who have the buried infrastructure to keep on firing nuclear weapons at the US. China will not attack the US as there is simply no reason for them to do so.


What do you think would happen to the interdependant world economy?


Good things really as it will enable many nations to start acting in far more independent way to the general betterment of their various people's. A globalized economy will result in nothing but a fascist world government and i don't want that any more than you do.


As of 2003 estimates, the US made up 21.6% GWP (gross world product) The EU 21.4%. And china 12%GWP.


Source? Are this based on dollar value moving in that countries financial markets or related to actual goods exchanged or consumed?



The world economy would collapse if america would fall.


No it would not and stop kidding yourself being as ignorant of economic realities as you are.


So you shouldnt get such a hard on when talking about such serious yet unlikely scenarios.


Talking about these matters hardly gets me excited but i wish it would those who would be the first to suffer the consequences of their ignorance.


Lets face it, The world needs america more then they dont need it.


I can't speak for the world but knowing what the American governments had done ( and still attempts) in the past, to maintain their dominance, i don't believe there will be a great public outcry when America falters or falls.


And once the Fairtax goes through,


There is no evidence that it will and i wish you would actually bring me the names of the prominent American senators and economic policy makers who support this, probably good economic, policy. .


the world economy will become more and more dependant on the american economy.


It is not dependent on the American economy for any other reason than the ability of the American armed forces to inflict terror bombing on those third world countries that attempts to try alternative economic strategies.


It will put an end to the china supermacy crap talk. And will finally shut up all the american bashers who think the US economy is on its final footing.
]


The American economy has probably gone past the point of no return and considering the absence of economics reformers in government i don't see how reform will come before a even more severe decline or collapse.

Stellar



ape

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

stellarX
when America falters or falls.



you should put 'If', it would make you seem somewhat legit, even though I know that is difficult for you.




The American economy has probably gone past the point of no return and considering the absence of economics reformers in government i don't see how reform will come before a even more severe decline or collapse.


please dont speak for my country as you're just a misinformed south african who needs to worry about his countrys own domestic issues instead of focusing a propaganda war on ATS against americans, how about you contribute into bettering your country like me and semper do by participating in fair tax which would solve alot of domestic issues in my country alot of which you dont know a damn thing about.

I suggest not commenting on subject matter you know nothing of, you just throw the US aside like we are a failing nation without doing proper research, if it was not for the massive comsumers and infrastructure in the US and the EU economies like china and india among others others would not go anywhere, its business from the EU and the US that keeps these countries in progression what would make you think they can develope other countries??? oh yeah you mean NK yeah thats a model nation=[. IF the EU and the US took hits it would be felt world wide, when the USSR collapsed the only nations i recall taking hits were the countries who relyed on them, I find it funny how many former USSR republics declared independence from russia the second the USSR fell apart eager to join the west and NATO and investment in the EU along with protection from the barbarians.



It is not dependent on the American economy for any other reason than the ability of the American armed forces to inflict terror bombing on those third world countries that attempts to try alternative economic strategies.


NO, because US infrastructure is very developed and this country has massive consumers who can actually afford to pay for foreign goods, more so than a chinese citizen and a russian citizen i'm not so sure about europe. I'm an average american and I have very strong purchasing power.



stellarX
There is no evidence that it will and i wish you would actually bring me the names of the prominent American senators and economic policy makers who support this, probably good economic, policy


why would you need us to do your own research for you? you take the time to flame the living hell out of the forums in the format you lay out yet you wont even take the time to look into who supports fairtax?? go to the website and look on the congressional scorecard??? very simple.




According to Stanislav Lunev mini nuclear weapons are already em placed all over the US and being manned by KGB and other Russian agents. To think that Muslim terrorist operate such weapons are shear delusion fantasy and the Russians are probably doing their best to encourage these unfounded rumours


pure fantasy, nothing to back it up but a russian.




They certainly have sufficient resources to build new nuclear missiles and strategic submarines as well as deploy and upgrade hundreds of air defense systems so why on Earth assume they would do that BEFORE they keep their strategic forces well maintained? The logic is simply flawed and the type of evidence that would prove your assertion is most certainly not to be found in any documents or sources i have seen or heard about.


this is a current stat sheet about russian nuclear capability that is non bias

www.thebulletin.org...

the US
www.thebulletin.org...



Yes they seem to have done just that and there is no solid evidence that they did not operate sufficient nuclear forces today to ensure the destruction of the US as a modern industrial nation. This is assuming the absence of large scale deployments of direct energy weapons in the US as they certainly could have just as the USSR seemed to have


as far as numbers sure russia has more, but thats just missiles, the US has more strategic locations and options along with up to date technology and upgrades on the current missiles they do operate in which they could attack russia. I know for a fact you believe russia can survive a nuclear war with the US because you have stated it before. you actually think russia is going to have air superiority over the US? what about control of the open sea? if this was a nuclear war you would see the AGM-129a stealth ACM fired in massed numbers ( which is the US strategy ) completly wiping out russian defense and infrastructure and this is just with the ACM option. so much for your OPINION on how mother russia would just steam roll the US in a nuclear engagment. the sooner you realise nobody would win in a nuclear war the sooner you will regain credability, russia would hit the US hard im not going to deny this, but as time goes on and the US deploys DEW in mass out in the field( which there is plenty of proof they are going to achieve very soon ) this threat would diminish greatly. russia however aside from the sources you provided from 1987 does not have the funding to invest in DEW yet alone to manufacture and deploy it on a mass level. what evidence do you have that they are funding these programs to deploy on a mass level? the US outspends the next 24 top nations combined in defense in such technology. you only speculate guy, the US proves its development by working with other nations like israel and THEL, along with domestic projects like what wespoint linked up in another thread. funding is everything, the US is the most advanced nation in DEW.

this is where russia stands economically

en.wikipedia.org...

the US

en.wikipedia.org...

EU economy en.wikipedia.org...


( I will not deny the US has to face up to certain domestic issues, but it is certainly not as bad as you make it out to be, as soon as fair tax is installed the outsourcing of american industry would come to a halt, pack up and come home. you have no idea of what the current domestic attitude is, we are not drones despite your opinion, lay off the alex jones please he spews misinformation.




[edit on 4-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 4-1-2007 by ape

[edit on 4-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
You can have any opinion you like and it's pretty clear that is all your about. The Russian civilian economy may be dominated by such powerful groups but that is not the case for their armed forces and i think we should rather look at the missing Pentagon funds before we point fingers at the so called Russian mafia influence over their defense establishment.


Look I really dont have the time to play these little circle jerk games of yours.

One thing I have noticed about your 'lecturing' (which probably isnt the right word to use givin your delusional state) is you are so sure to tell ppl to show some sources but when you yourself say something the sources are no where to be found. Or they are filled with propaganda that you spout as fact. Very misleading just so you can support your outrageous claims. Show me some 'reliable' sources to what you 'claim' to be as fact!

Otherwise I sense a bit of hypocrisy from you.


China already sided with Russia and it's too bad you do not know about it. When last did the Chinese economy depend on toy exports to the US markets? Have you done any research or are you reading these myths from a prepared sheet?


I am well aware of China 'siding' with Russia. However the Russians need be careful when dealing with the chinese as it is the chinese who are using the Russians for there own agenda. Dont think for a second once china no longer needs russia that china wouldnt hesitate to stab russia in the back.

China is very much so dependant on the US. But I will adress this later on down in my rebuttal.


Their growth would slow down by a few percent per year and they would have to focus more on development of their markets in the East and third world. In the resulting power vacuum ( absence of EU and US as functioning regions) they would probably be able to make the deals they require to continue trading. The US can not afford to waste nuclear warheads on China as they will need each and every one they can spare against Russia who have the buried infrastructure to keep on firing nuclear weapons at the US. China will not attack the US as there is simply no reason for them to do so.


Their? Whos 'Their'? I guess im going to have to assume your talking about China. Chinas economy would be in peices without the US/EU. The World Economy would be destroyed. Your lack of intelligance on the very subject has helped me to come to the profound conclusion that you have made it evident enough for me to say that you have no freakin clue as to what in the hell it is your talking about! You read propaganda filled filth you are bound to take it as fact just like you are. Oh how dazed and confused you really are.

Good things really as it will enable many nations to start acting in far more independent way to the general betterment of their various people's. A globalized economy will result in nothing but a fascist world government and i don't want that any more than you do.


In anycase of a collapse of America the world economy would follow as the demand created by the US economy evaporates. Now couple that in with the EU and you have a huge problem. So yes. The world economy would infact collapse. Because it wouldnt be able to sustain the current growth without the US and EU. Its to interdepedant. Now ask yourself this. What would that do to the world let alone china?

Remeber it is your opinion that the US is going to collapse. And Its like that ol’ saying goes about opinions. There like assholes, everyones got one. Forgive me If I just take your opinion like just another asshole.

The US wont collapse because the USD wont collapse. China, Japan, Russia, the Middle East oil kingdoms, Korea, Taiwan, and all the other major industrial powers of the world today are locked in a no win situation of having to take USD’s for all their goods, and having to allow the US to run ruinous fiscal and trade deficits. They really have little choice because every industrial and commercial process from banking to making TV sets is cost based in USD and paid for predominately in USD.

What would happen if the USD system collapsed?

Wouldn’t every industrial process, banking transaction, retirement fund, manufacturing process stop dead for a time?

Wouldn’t that mean that the world economies would have to endure a major depression and financial collapse because the oil in the world financial machine (the USD) ran dry?

Wouldn’t there be massive shortages, as just in time manufacturing for everything under the sun stopped cold because the USD financial payments for everything from commodities inputs to worker paychecks, to truck drivers, to fuel payments for trucks became worthless?

Would the world have to find a new way to clear every financial transaction from a paycheck to even a box of pencils for a factory? Find out how to clear the entire mass of USD transactions that encodes every thing that is made, paid, invested every second everywhere…

if the USD collapses the entire world economy stops cold. And then consider the fact that just in time manufacturing means that the entire supply of every thing has about 3 days inventory, and if factories have trouble making payments to suppliers for example, the factories have to stop, and 3 days later, there just aren’t any more critical ‘XXX’ (you fill in the blank)!

Imagine every USD denominated bank account becoming worthless. Imagine trillions of dollars of retirement funds becoming worthless. Imagine China losing 2/3 of its trillion dollar foreign reserves, and Japan, and Russia, and Taiwan, and Korea.



No it would not and stop kidding yourself being as ignorant of economic realities as you are.


I dont claim to know everything about economics. But what a weak attempt at some smack talk.
stick to what you do best which is spout off rediculous claims filled with misinfo.




Talking about these matters hardly gets me excited but i wish it would those who would be the first to suffer the consequences of their ignorance.


See how easily you just contradicted yourself there.


Anyways be prepared for the entire world to suffer a huge setback then.
Im done. Good luck and God speed.

[edit on 023131p://4101am by semperfoo]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Warsaw Pact were, indeed, a formidable weapon.
Militarily speaking, the Warsaw Pact [WP] was a force to be reckoned with.


I think that is a given assuming the NATO leadership discussing how many weeks ( not if) it would take the WP to reach the French or Belgian coast's...


Having said that, military units within the WP were categorised as being fit for war by their unit designation.

The elite of all forces were given an 'A' prefix, whilst second string units were given a 'B' designation and reservists and recruit units were given a 'C' designation.


The prefix were intended to show combat readiness in terms of manpower, training and supplies and not really the 'eliteness' of the unit.


'A' type units would invariably get the best equipment, the best officers, snco's and jnco's and would often get the coveted Guards title.

'B' type units were mostly high quality troops with good quality equipment whilst 'C' type units were there largely to make up the numbers with obselete or semi-obsolete equipment - much in the same way as our territorial army - turn up for 2 weeks and maybe fire your rifle or drive your tank, but only if there was anough rounds of fuel to go round.


The anti-'communist' propaganda version of reality.



Even so, sheer weight of numbers and Soviet doctrine [stated intentions of first use of chemical weapons in front line areas and biological weapons in Brigade, Divisional and Corps rear areas] would, I think, have ensured a quick WP victory.


The fact that their weapons were not generally inferior added to their overwhelming numbers led most analyst to believe exactly that...


I say this because NATO commander would have been at odds with each other in the form of what retaliation they should take. [The scenario of George Bush telling Iraq that if they used chemical weapons coalition forces would go nuclear - just did not exist, if only because the WP had the will to use nuclear wpns]


They had a will and superior forces to benefit from any and all types of force escalation...


At the time - say the early and perhaps the late 70's, the Russian led WP was comparable to and in certain cases better than the NATO forces it faced - especially in artillery, fighter-bomber aircraft and most certainly in helicopter gunships where NATO had nothing much to offer.

As I said, I think the WP would have won any conflict, but perhaps it would have been a close run thing.


Possible close run, in a conventional war, up until the early 70's but after that things got worse rather fast.


With regards to Russia and her military power today, she is no longer a superpower. Her military is no longer to be feared - even if that fear was misplaced in the first place.


Even if that fear was not misplaced? By virtue of her remaining nuclear weapons and ABM deployments she is still very much the superpower and in my opinion in possession of a strategic 'ace' that has resulted in the rapid decline of the US economic and military prowess over the last two decades.


Russian military itself, does not pose a threat. It is the mafia gangs with access to military weapons, equipment and nuclear technology that pose the threat, as recently demonstrated by the death of an ex KGB spy in London.


Well i see that you have accepted the common western media view... Have you read any of the material i contributed or can i bother you with with some of the sources i base my claims on?

Stellar



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoBravery
You disprove your own point.
All the systems you mention are those of a nation that is struggling with power projection.


How is it struggling? Does Russia not benefit by these massively higher oil prices and does it not benefit by the hugely expensive American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? What exactly in this world is going America's way with all the supposed power projection capabilities they have?


The US has carriers to control foreign airspace and protect transports.


With the operational cost involved in such weapons they better do all that and it's most certainly not assured against all the strategic weaponry that Russia can deploy against it. Carriers are in fact most useful for terrorizing the third world but are unlikely to last in a nuclear exchange or true strategic war.



The US has expensive aircraft so that it can strike anywhere in the world.


Not sure why their expense is a qualifier ( i would much rather have dirt cheap aircraft with the same ability) but i suppose we are still assuming that spending more is somehow a indication of general effectiveness? How many US bombers are truly strategic and how effective would they be against modern Russian air defenses when they would not have had much success in the 80's according to the specialist at the time? The B-2 force is just too damn limited in operational capability and operates from a single airbase that would not exist for very long once a 'real' war breaks out. The fact that they require so many support aircraft ( dozens for a single intercontinental strike) does not help and makes them rather unwieldy tools that can not do much but bomb the most static of targets.


If you can't afford an air force, then you attempt aerial denial with air defense.


Everyone can afford a air force and the USSR could have certainly deployed thousands more had they wanted to but airfields are vulnerable to strategic and theater ballistic missiles ( to say nothing of cruise missiles and long range artillery) and there soon comes a point when your inviting disaster by making yourself too predictable. The USSR and Russia took the dual route of protecting themselves by both means in a rather balanced way thus enhancing the efficiency of both forces and not exposing themselves to a single point failure.


If you can't afford a navy, then you attempt denial of the seaways.


The USSR would have quickly won the convoy battle's in the Atlantic and with the vastly reduced US force levels in Europe the reduction in their naval strength still enables them effective means of denying the US easy convoy access to European battlefields.


I'm not being negative towards Russia.


Probably not and this misunderstanding could simply be due to you not having really investigated this issue before simply posting what seems logical based on western media reports. It's after all not your fault their lying trough their teeth.



If they are above sticking there nose everywhere then good for them. I just think compared to the 80's, their military reflects a nation withdrawn from power projection.


Then how is it that their economy is getting so much stronger while the US economy has weakened so tremendously?


BTW your trying to sell us a Yugo like it's a Bentley.


The problem with not knowing is that you really do not.... Nothing i can't help you with!

Stellar


ape

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by DoBravery
You disprove your own point.
All the systems you mention are those of a nation that is struggling with power projection.


How is it struggling? Does Russia not benefit by these massively higher oil prices and does it not benefit by the hugely expensive American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? What exactly in this world is going America's way with all the supposed power projection capabilities they have?


The US has carriers to control foreign airspace and protect transports.


With the operational cost involved in such weapons they better do all that and it's most certainly not assured against all the strategic weaponry that Russia can deploy against it. Carriers are in fact most useful for terrorizing the third world but are unlikely to last in a nuclear exchange or true strategic war.



The US has expensive aircraft so that it can strike anywhere in the world.


Not sure why their expense is a qualifier ( i would much rather have dirt cheap aircraft with the same ability) but i suppose we are still assuming that spending more is somehow a indication of general effectiveness? How many US bombers are truly strategic and how effective would they be against modern Russian air defenses when they would not have had much success in the 80's according to the specialist at the time? The B-2 force is just too damn limited in operational capability and operates from a single airbase that would not exist for very long once a 'real' war breaks out. The fact that they require so many support aircraft ( dozens for a single intercontinental strike) does not help and makes them rather unwieldy tools that can not do much but bomb the most static of targets.


If you can't afford an air force, then you attempt aerial denial with air defense.


Everyone can afford a air force and the USSR could have certainly deployed thousands more had they wanted to but airfields are vulnerable to strategic and theater ballistic missiles ( to say nothing of cruise missiles and long range artillery) and there soon comes a point when your inviting disaster by making yourself too predictable. The USSR and Russia took the dual route of protecting themselves by both means in a rather balanced way thus enhancing the efficiency of both forces and not exposing themselves to a single point failure.


If you can't afford a navy, then you attempt denial of the seaways.


The USSR would have quickly won the convoy battle's in the Atlantic and with the vastly reduced US force levels in Europe the reduction in their naval strength still enables them effective means of denying the US easy convoy access to European battlefields.


I'm not being negative towards Russia.


Probably not and this misunderstanding could simply be due to you not having really investigated this issue before simply posting what seems logical based on western media reports. It's after all not your fault their lying trough their teeth.



If they are above sticking there nose everywhere then good for them. I just think compared to the 80's, their military reflects a nation withdrawn from power projection.


Then how is it that their economy is getting so much stronger while the US economy has weakened so tremendously?


BTW your trying to sell us a Yugo like it's a Bentley.


The problem with not knowing is that you really do not.... Nothing i can't help you with!

Stellar


take a good read people, you wont find a better example of misinformation anywhere on the net !



[edit on 7-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
This is assuming the absence of large scale deployments of direct energy weapons in the US as they certainly could have just as the USSR seemed to have.


What complete and utter BS, you hvae absolutely no proof of this, you write far more fiction than fact





They certainly have sufficient resources to build new nuclear missiles and strategic submarines as well as deploy and upgrade hundreds of air defense systems so why on Earth assume they would do that BEFORE they keep their strategic forces well maintained?


Because they DO NOT hvae the resources to spend the necessary money everywhere. Besides they can barely afford to build a nuclear sub, it's taken them years just to lay down the keel of the first Borei class because they couldn't afford it.



Can we keep our source material based on official documents please as i have no need to rely on the opinions of non defense industry or intelligence specialist to defend my views.


LMAO, how typically hyprocritical, take a leaf out of your own book



. There was never any danger of a nuclear war breaking out as the Russians quickly discovered that there were no large scale attack and thus nothing to fear.


Except that Yeltsin was drunk and he had the direct ability to order their strategic forces to attack ( using the Russian version of the ' football ' )without having to get it confired by anyone else.



According to Stanislav Lunev mini nuclear weapons are already em placed all over the US and being manned by KGB and other Russian agents.


You do realise the KGB does not exist anymore
Oh BTW can we please stick to reputable sources.



You can have any opinion you like and it's pretty clear that is all your about. The Russian civilian economy may be dominated by such powerful groups but that is not the case for their armed forces and i think we should rather look at the missing Pentagon funds before we point fingers at the so called Russian mafia influence over their defense establishment.


You don't see a security problem with the US selling nuclear weapons or having nuclear materials easily accessable. It is well known that Russia lacks the necessary controls over it's bomb grade materials.



China already sided with Russia and it's too bad you do not know about it. When last did the Chinese economy depend on toy exports to the US markets? Have you done any research or are you reading these myths from a prepared sheet?


CHina has not already sided with Russia LOL. China uses Russia for it's military equipment, there will come a time in the not to distant future when CHina has surpassed Russian militray tech, then they won;t even have to pay ;ip service to the Russians anymore. I can say categorically, many Chinese here feel much more affinity to Americans than they do to Russians, simple fact. Not ot mention som of the more hardline military men see Siberia as Chinese territory.
Also Russia is a miniscule market for the Chinese economy, thnk about that.



Their growth would slow down by a few percent per year and they would have to focus more on development of their markets in the East and third world. In the resulting power vacuum ( absence of EU and US as functioning regions) they would probably be able to make the deals they require to continue trading.


this actually made me laugh, it became very obvious that this person has no idea about what hes talking about, needless to say he's completely wrong.
I'm curious though who would take up the slack with the EU and US gone ? Who would buy the necessary volume of Chinese goods ? Please tell me, LOL.



can not afford to waste nuclear warheads on China as they will need each and every one they can spare against Russia who have the buried infrastructure to keep on firing nuclear weapons at the US.


LOL ^^ back to your Cold War fantasy's again. What's the matter do you hate the world, the gitls don't find you atractive ?



Good things really as it will enable many nations to start acting in far more independent way to the general betterment of their various people's. A globalized economy will result in nothing but a fascist world government and i don't want that any more than you do.


Said like a true parrot, can you form your own opinions or just regurgitate all teh slogans and ideals you find on fronge websites.



003 estimates, the US made up 21.6% GWP (gross world product) The EU 21.4%. And china 12%GWP.


Source? Are this based on dollar value moving in that countries financial markets or related to actual goods exchanged or consumed?


Once again you obviously don't understand what this indicator means, you're the google king - look it up.




The world economy would collapse if america would fall.


No it would not and stop kidding yourself being as ignorant of economic realities as you are.


Ever here of the great depression ? guess not.



ce it, The world needs america more then they dont need it.


I can't speak for the world but knowing what the American governments had done ( and still attempts) in the past, to maintain their dominance, i don't believe there will be a great public outcry when America falters or falls.


You obvioulsy know very little, but hey you do live in the ass end of the world.



The American economy has probably gone past the point of no return and considering the absence of economics reformers in government i don't see how reform will come before a even more severe decline or collapse.


Highly unlikely, I think you should study some economics first before you start making these statements. I know you've probably googled these postions from som Economists somewhere, however it is clearly obvious you don't understand economics. Go back to school or do a course, don;t be so naive all the time.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
What complete and utter BS, you hvae absolutely no proof of this, you write far more fiction than fact


That's why i expressly said that i can't prove it for either countries even if it's logical that both must have them by now.


Because they DO NOT hvae the resources to spend the necessary money everywhere.


Neither does the US hence the downsizing of active units and general reduction of acquisition programs... Why does not having enough to do everything you may want make incapable of affording what is vital? No one here has even begun to show that Russia is incapable of maintaining it's strategic forces maintained on levels that reflects their current reduced needs due to their own national ABM system.


Besides they can barely afford to build a nuclear sub, it's taken them years just to lay down the keel of the first Borei class because they couldn't afford it.


Well they did lay down the keel a long time ago but apparently decided the money could be better used elsewhere considering they still had about the same number of SSBN's. Remember that they did not place as much emphasis on their SSBN's as they chose to go with land mobile ICBMs that could be reloaded more easily and were far more survivable and cheaper. The fact that they deployed so many ICBMs during the cold war just reflects their spending to maintain complete superiority ( in the opinion of the majority of defense analysts) they had built up during the late mid and late 80's.


LMAO, how typically hyprocritical, take a leaf out of your own book


While you may choose not to believe what the sources i have employed suggested they are still mainly from official sources unlike the nonsense you sometimes want to inject as fact.


Except that Yeltsin was drunk and he had the direct ability to order their strategic forces to attack ( using the Russian version of the ' football ' )without having to get it confired by anyone else.


The 'crazy Russian' comments are quite funny considering your age.
Next we will hear you talk about how Iran will nuke someone the moment the bomb comes of the assembly lines just like the Pakistan's, Indians, Israeli's, South-Africans', Brazilians, North Koreans and so many others did when they first got 'the bomb'. Is it not hypocritical to suggest other nations might do this when the only nation who have used such a bomb on civilians , about as soon as they could, are the countries who's policies you defend so often?


You do realise the KGB does not exist anymore
Oh BTW can we please stick to reputable sources.


Stanislav Lunev was the highest ranking KGB defector so far and he testified as to this being true before the US congress. I for one believe him but you may choose not to if you wish.



You don't see a security problem with the US selling nuclear weapons or having nuclear materials easily accessable.


The US has given nuclear technology to more nations than the former USSR or Russia did and there is good evidence that the USSR got much of it's nuclear related known how from the American program which was simply given to them. Lebed might have been telling the truth about those suitcase nukes going missing but his statements were never validated so we just don't know.

Please do not pretend that you can defend these myths you so like referring to.


It is well known that Russia lacks the necessary controls over it's bomb grade materials.


Which is one one of those well known western media myths as far as my research goes. Not sure if it's true for chemical and biological weapons thought but if the US can sell such to Iraq i guess the USSR might have had some 'accidental' transfers as well.


CHina has not already sided with Russia LOL. China uses Russia for it's military equipment, there will come a time in the not to distant future when CHina has surpassed Russian militray tech, then they won;t even have to pay ;ip service to the Russians anymore.


I don't see how China could rival Russian technological achievements any time soon and as things stand their military is developing along the lines Russian technology did... Would it matter if i said that they have demilitarized their borders in the late 90's and are now holding military exercises together? Would the following statement matter at all?



The new treaty is the first new friendship treaty since the Sino-Soviet pact in 1950. The new treaty will set up a new-type of interstate relations, different from those agreed to in the 1950s. It is "not directed against any third country" nor does it impose any obligations to each other.

The only goal of the treaty is to enhance the strategic relations between China and Russia and to provide a basis for world peace and stability.

The two sides also agreed not to aim their strategic nuclear weapons at each other and said they would work to solve any dispute peacefully. "If a threat of aggression arises," the treaty states, the two sides "will immediately make contact with each other and hold consultations in order to eliminate the emerging threat."

www.china.org.cn...


'Eliminate' must be some kind of language mix-up?


President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin signed the first post-Soviet friendship treaty between the two nations this week. "The treaty will bring friendship from generation to generation," Jiang said after the signing ceremony. "This is a milestone in the development of Chinese-Russian relations."

The U.S. State Department was quick to announce that the Chinese-Russian pact is no threat. But behind the scenes the new closeness between Moscow and Beijing is causing serious headaches in Washington.

Two months ago The Washington Times published a story, based on leaks from the Pentagon, that alleged that a February 2001 Russian strategic exercise was in fact a preparation to attack U.S. bases in the Far East in support of China. The exercises involved Russian Tu-22 Backfire bombers that flew close to Japanese airspace.

"The Russians were practicing nuclear intervention against U.S. troops on Taiwan," said an unidentified American intelligence official, familiar with classified reports.

High-ranking Russian generals and diplomats I interviewed on the subject said that these allegations are crazy, that if and when the U.S. and China clash over Taiwan, Moscow would do its best to keep neutral.

www.cdi.org...##4



In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.

The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.

Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.

Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants. As the Pravda.ru Web site announced, “the reconciliation between China and Russia has been driven in part by mutual unease at U.S. power and a fear of Islamic extremism in Central Asia.”

www.heritage.org...



The most striking result of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov's four-day visit to China this week was the agreement announced Monday to hold "substantial military exercises on Chinese territory in 2005" (quote from Russia's Interfax news agency). This was Ivanov's second trip to Beijing this year, and Chinese President Hu Jintao used the occasion to assert, "Sino-Russian strategic coordination has attained an unprecedentedly high level."

The agreement to hold joint exercises is, in fact, unprecedented, and Hu went on to express satisfaction at the growth in relations between the two armies. Not that you would know any of this from our lethargic press.

The Chinese and Russian news services played up the story, and AP and Reuters correspondents promptly filed detailed reports from Beijing. But most U.S. print media-The Washington Post, for example-ignored the story. The New York Times Tuesday cut it down to two sentences tacked onto the end of a roundup titled "World Briefing" on page A6.

NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia over Kosovo in 1999 had already heightened the need felt by China and Russia to buttress mutual security ties. The experience eroded the confidence each had in its ability to advance and protect its interests by using its veto at the United Nations Security Council. That confidence suffered a far more serious blow when the United States and UK decided to attack Iraq without explicit Security Council approval. This created even stronger incentive for Russia and China to quicken their rapprochement.

www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Continued...


There is no subtlety in the Treaty on Good Neighborly Friendship and Cooperation Between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. Presidents Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin designed their friendship treaty, signed in Moscow on July 16, to send a loud message to the Bush administration. That message in no uncertain terms tells the White House that it has a supremely mistaken notion about what kind of world it is. And if the United States continues on the dangerous hegemonic road it is now taking, the result will be global instability, thus compelling closer Sino-Russian security cooperation.

The Jiang-Putin joint statement proclaiming that the treaty is "not directed against third countries" is a fig leaf that can be quickly discarded. The naked truth is contained in their hope for a "just and rational new order" and in their opposition to numerous U.S. policies.

The U.S. drive for world domination, Jiang and Putin agree, is revealed in Washington's decision to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to pursue national missile defense. The two leaders called the ABM Treaty a "cornerstone of strategic stability and the basis for reducing offensive weapons." A U.S. multi-layered (land, sea, air, and space) missile defense, Jiang and Putin have long argued, would make America boss by negating Chinese and Russian deterrent capabilities.

The spectre of a China-Russia strategic alliance is looming larger on the Eurasian continent. The signs are increasingly clear: Both China and Russia strongly opposed the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, during which the Chinese embassy was bombed by the Americans. Both China and Russia strongly opposed the US proposal to develop a theatre missile defence (TMD) system and to amend the Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IBM) Treaty with Russia. In the UN, China joined Russia and Belarus in co-sponsoring the motion to keep the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The motion was recently passed by the UN General Assembly.1 Russia recently conducted a series of missile tests amid mounting Western protests against its military actions in Chechnya. China has expressed support for the Russian military actions.

www.iir.ubc.ca...


So your right, absolutely nothing to worry about! Just keep your head in the sand and hope the sun doesn't come up.


What is the SCO and 'BRIC'?


MOSCOW \emdash Russia and China warned other nations Friday against attempts to dominate global affairs and interfere in the domestic issues of sovereign nations in what appeared to be a veiled expression of their irritation with U.S. policy.

China's president, Hu Jintao joins Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin to announce their agreement.
AP

Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao signed a joint declaration after two days of talks calling for a stronger United Nations role in global affairs and opposing attempts "to impose models of social and political development from outside."

The two leaders also urged other states to renounce "striving for monopoly and domination in international affairs and attempts to divide nations into leaders and those being led."

While the declaration did not identify any specific country, it echoed similar veiled hints by Moscow and Beijing about U.S. policy in global affairs.

China, Russia warn of world domination



Mr. Karagonov also pointed out considerable cultural differences between the three countries, as well as intense relations between China and India, RIA Novosti reports.

It was reported on Monday, however, that India and China concluded a strategic partnership agreement. Details of the new document were not exposed, although it is known that the parties came to agreement on the issues of the long-standing border dispute, bilateral trade relations and the economic cooperation. Indian and Chinese prime ministers stated that the document would boost diplomatic and economic links between China and India and help the two states resist "global threats."

For the time being it is not known if Russia is going to have at least something to do with the "strategic partnership" of India and China. It is not ruled out, though, that Beijing and Delhi decided to do without Moscow's participation.

India, China and Russia to create new alliance to challenge USA's supremacy



The signing of the 2001 Treaty for Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Co-operation set in legal stone the sincere hopes of the two peoples for "eternal friendship and never enmity," marking a new phase in the maturity and stability of Sino-Russian relations.

In addition, demarcation of the 4,300-kilometre border was recognized in law, making it a link for "peace, friendship, co-operation and development." This also removed uncertainties that had surrounded political ties and provided security guarantees for future generations and a foundation for deeper growth of bilateral ties.

This year's joint communique signals that relations have entered their best-ever phase. These joint military exercises are the result of the two countries reaching an important stage in relations and a manifestation of the pragmatism demonstrated by both sides.

Sino-Russian relations blossom


That's just a few of the reason why i think what i do but feel free to just deny what you do not seem to know about....


I can say categorically, many Chinese here feel much more affinity to Americans than they do to Russians, simple fact.


Much like Americans felt real affinity for the Iraqi/Saudi/Afghani compatriots who the US government sponsored and support in war... Don't suddenly pretend that geopolitics have all that much to do with what the people of various countries want.


Not ot mention som of the more hardline military men see Siberia as Chinese territory.
Also Russia is a miniscule market for the Chinese economy, thnk about that.


So one wonders why they do have all these treaties they they don't even trade much.
I suppose they just like signing stuff and posing for photo opportunities while politely asking the US to leave certain regions of the world?


this actually made me laugh, it became very obvious that this person has no idea about what hes talking about, needless to say he's completely wrong.


Just feel free to point out why your disagreeing as you know i don't particularly like your vague references to knowledge that never seems to correspond with observable reality.


I'm curious though who would take up the slack with the EU and US gone ? Who would buy the necessary volume of Chinese goods ? Please tell me, LOL.


The added goods they sell help them to ensure faster growth but they are not dependent on their trade with either the EU or the US... The truth is China's foreign reserve currencies are larger than The foreign depth and while the current arrangement suits China i don't think there is any reason to suggest that the USA would be better off than China in case mutual trade ceases tomorrow.


LOL ^^ back to your Cold War fantasy's again. What's the matter do you hate the world, the gitls don't find you atractive ?


It might be a fantasy but you have done nothing to expose it as such by your vapid rambling and denials. I don't have any serious problems with the world beside the fact that i think it could be so much better had more people known what i do. As to the rest your quite right; I'm so ugly i get stoned when i leave my house and women tend to run away screaming! Is this really the type of things you have to believe about those who expose you as a liar and a fraud? Your such a child.


Said like a true parrot, can you form your own opinions or just regurgitate all teh slogans and ideals you find on fronge websites.


Google that exact wording and see if you find something.
Can't from my own opinions? Now i am pretty sure you never read a single thing i have said to you over the last year!
IF you MUST insult me at least elevate it to something more adult!


Once again you obviously don't understand what this indicator means, you're the google king - look it up.


GWP by that measure are mainly 'financial product' thus meaning the shifting of numbers on computer screens. If you want to refer to that as 'product' or 'trade' i will simply laugh and point as i am unsure what else to do with such beliefs. Maybe in ten years when i have more experience in dealing with the level of ignorance you have ascended to ( and i say ascend because i believe it took great effort and consistent denial of the obvious) i might understand how to deal with you but right now I'm not up to such a overwhelmingly complex task.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Ever here of the great depression ? guess not.


Different times!


The special nature of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world has allowed this game to last longer than it would have otherwise. But the fact that gold has gone from $252 per ounce to over $600 means there is concern about the future of the dollar. The higher the price for gold, the greater the concern for the dollar. Instead of dwelling on the dollar price of gold, we should be talking about the depreciation of the dollar. In 1934 a dollar was worth 1/20th of an ounce of gold; $20 bought an ounce of gold. Today a dollar is worth 1/600th of an ounce of gold, meaning it takes $600 to buy one ounce of gold.

What the Price of Gold is Telling Us


The US had oil and the US exported oil like no one else did so there are no legitimate comparisons to be made. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is the US military that still retains the capability to take on most of the world's nations...


You obvioulsy know very little, but hey you do live in the ass end of the world.


More not so adult insult.
I started this post with a frown but i must say i have cheered up considerably.
Please research the work of such well recognized authors as Noam Chomsky or just read declassified CIA and NIA documents! No nation in world history could have done so much good yet knowingly chose to cause so much suffering and destruction. You have heard of the 100 million 'bodycount' of supposed communist regimes but i can assure you that the American foreign policy has killed many more than that had that number been true to start with.

[quyote]Highly unlikely, I think you should study some economics first before you start making these statements.

Why should i have to study economics ( i suppose the world is in such great shape because no government relies on economies for advice?) to be able to investigate this issue and compare what various economist have to say? Let's rather stick to specifics if you don't mind terribly!


I know you've probably googled these postions from som Economists somewhere, however it is clearly obvious you don't understand economics. Go back to school or do a course, don;t be so naive all the time.


Thanks for the 'advice' rogue.
Where is the American's senate's interest in economic reform? All i have seen is lip-service and almost good ideas like 'Fairtax" ( one should worry when something needs such blatant advertising) which might be half a decent idea if all other state, federal and sales taxes are cancelled. That will obviously ensure that the US economy does not grow but anyways!

Stellar


ape

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

BY STELLAR
the US military that still retains the capability to take on most of the world's nations


it has the ability to take on every single nation on this earth (1on1).

this is getting really amusing.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oplot84
actially the original version of it was unguided... new version of it is guided.


A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.

The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.

www.globalsecurity.org... source


Ahh, thanks for the link, I didnt come across that article. I guess then it is a weapon to be feared. Pretty neat really, does it not also use sonar or thermal guidance? Something that can help update the target data on the torp during route to target?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Look I really dont have the time to play these little circle jerk games of yours.


That , i suppose, is a pretty funny thing to say when your all of twenty years old.



One thing I have noticed about your 'lecturing'


I don't lecture but if that's the feeling you get you may need to see someone about your feelings of inferiority....


(which probably isnt the right word to use givin your delusional state)


Words are cheap so i will be here all year to hear out the details of the accusations you so freely make.


is you are so sure to tell ppl to show some sources but when you yourself say something the sources are no where to be found.


Another lie spun from whole cloth. If i do not provide a immediate source i probably have before and if you have a problem with it ask for a source but don't be a child and insult me without providing any details. You ARE ignorant and delusional and that i can prove with the type of ease that would leave even the most biased of judges wondering how to defend the fantasy you so commonly spread as 'fact'.


Or they are filled with propaganda that you spout as fact.


Propaganda it might be but you should do at least something to prove it. Why if it is so easy have you done nothing to even begin to 'expose' me? The problem is not with my sources but with your avoidance of it.


Very misleading just so you can support your outrageous claims.


Misleading in what way? I use nothing but data from official intelligence and defense industry people yet you are willing to call it 'outrageous' because you have never heard of it before? Your bias prevents you from treating the data in any fairness and i will not allow your spurious claims to go uncontested.


Show me some 'reliable' sources to what you 'claim' to be as fact!


What is not reliable about the sources i have given? Since when is the CIA or FAS not sources one should consider in all seriousness? Why do you have such a hard time dealing with this data? Remember than when i dispute the accuracy of a specific claim made on the FAS sight or in CIA documents i show WHY by using other defense or intelligence sources.

If you actually provided sources i might take your claims slightly more seriously but your all about defending the most groundless of myths.


Otherwise I sense a bit of hypocrisy from you.


So i'm human and your representing the species in such a truly magnificent way? Compared to you i don't see how the term 'hypocrite' can be applied to me if it's not showered on you.


I am well aware of China 'siding' with Russia. However the Russians need be careful when dealing with the chinese as it is the chinese who are using the Russians for there own agenda. Dont think for a second once china no longer needs russia that china wouldnt hesitate to stab russia in the back.


Why do you think that knowing who holds the strategic power? Are you so blind as to see China as a threat to Russian while the USA acts in such a reckless way?


China is very much so dependant on the US.


It's currently a mutually beneficial arrangement but every day makes China stronger and the US weaker. Look at the foreign currency reserve holdings and internal debt of both countries and carefully look at who has gained a industrial base and massive infrastructure over the last few decades. In the short term the US benefits in a strategic sense but in the long term it's slitting it's own throat ever deeper.



But I will adress this later on down in my rebuttal.


I have never used the word 'rebuttal' on the Internet and until i do you should probably not such a open mockery of the implied intellectual requirements for such.


Their? Whos 'Their'? I guess im going to have to assume your talking about China.


I should give you a medal but i have had to deal with a lot of ignorance in the last few years.


Chinas economy would be in peices without the US/EU.


Prove it. The fact is that China reinvests most of the dollars it earns ( or receives in subsidies; we should ask why but since you wont...) from it's trade with the USA to keep the USD stable and derives as far as i can see no massive net economic gain beside being able to slowly buy up American corporations and industry in general.

www.counterpunch.org...

When a 'superpower' reaches the stage where it allows foreigners to control vital aspects of it's military industrial complex you know it's hemorrhaging to death pretty fast.


The World Economy would be destroyed.


Why? I mean how can the world economy be 'destroyed' when others can not longer be forced to accept useless paper money forced on them by terrorist means?


Your lack of intelligance on the very subject has helped me to come to the profound conclusion that you have made it evident enough for me to say that you have no freakin clue as to what in the hell it is your talking about!


You water, i duck. Insult does not discourage me and if your going to deal with fantasy you should at least provide some sources to make it seem more credible! If you can find educated people to agree that's always 'nice'.



ou read propaganda filled filth you are bound to take it as fact just like you are. Oh how dazed and confused you really are.


I appreciate the concern for me but it would help me best if you just went with some old fashioned 'data' that actually supports those claims.


In anycase of a collapse of America the world economy would follow as the demand created by the US economy evaporates.


The only reason people export to the US is because they need dollars to buy vital goods with as too many countries and markets have been forced into dollar dependency. Americans do not really create demand that can not be found elsewhere if not for the forced dependency on dollars.



Now couple that in with the EU and you have a huge problem. So yes. The world economy would infact collapse.


Why? China is growing even thought much of Europe and the industrialized west is not growing ( when you take into account deficit spending; which is a inflation fueling subsidy of your own economy) and i don't see how you so easily make the connection that the world economy would collapse instead of it just switching to Euros and creating markets , by means of foreign investment, elsewhere. The only reason Americans can keep buying stuff is because they are allowed to keep loaning from banks hence the housing bubble and those other problems. It's not that Americans really have the money but that someone else is giving them 'wealth' with which to buy products they could not otherwise afford.


Because it wouldnt be able to sustain the current growth without the US and EU. Its to interdepedant. Now ask yourself this. What would that do to the world let alone china?


The US economy is NOT growing in any fundamental way as there is no actual wealth creation. The world can do without China but consumers will be hit pretty hard when they realise they now have to pay much higher prices and can't get loans ( as given by Chinese central bank by reinvestment in US markets) as they used to. China would still retain the manufacturing base and will likely be able to create markets elsewhere by shifting the large amounts of capitol they have accumulated.


Remeber it is your opinion that the US is going to collapse. And Its like that ol’ saying goes about opinions. There like assholes, everyones got one. Forgive me If I just take your opinion like just another asshole.


May have been funny had i been ten years younger. It is not only my opinion that the USD will collapse in at some point in the near future as the signs are all there. No country can keep on with such deficit spending while wasting such large sums on foreign occupations.


The US wont collapse because the USD wont collapse. China, Japan, Russia, the Middle East oil kingdoms, Korea, Taiwan, and all the other major industrial powers of the world today are locked in a no win situation of having to take USD’s for all their goods, and having to allow the US to run ruinous fiscal and trade deficits.


The USD WILL ( there is no way to avoid it in the long term) collapse as the military power that ensured it's relative dominance is fast fading thus losing the capability to dominate the international trade by threat of force. The other countries that holds large dollar reserves will all stand to lose as well but few of them will be impacted as heavily or for as long as the US considering that there are so many other rising economies that could easily absorb investment capitol. The whole idea that the world economy MUST revolve around the US economy is shear fantasy and i can assure you that if money and resources were not channeled by such devious means they would quickly find alternative markets to support or exploit.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Continued


They really have little choice because every industrial and commercial process from banking to making TV sets is cost based in USD and paid for predominately in USD.


Once again this is only ensured by threat of force and the power of shifting large amounts of dollars around financial markets. Since we today have the Euro and Yen ( to say nothing of the Yuan) that could easily replace the USD as reserve currency there is no reason to think that things can not changed when the US starts losing the capability to employ force so far and wide.


What would happen if the USD system collapsed?
Wouldn’t every industrial process, banking transaction, retirement fund, manufacturing process stop dead for a time?


No? Why would it? Do you really think everyone is THAT dependent? Why inspires these types of fantasies?


Wouldn’t that mean that the world economies would have to endure a major depression and financial collapse because the oil in the world financial machine (the USD) ran dry?


The US no longer exports oil and no longer has anywhere near a dominant industrial base so this wont be anything like 1929. Sure the world economy would suffer a temporary financial storm but it will not be based on fundamentals as it was back then. That being said i don't see how the US as country with skilled workforce can be kept down for long so after the dust clears it will recover if international bankers allows it too wich , imo , is the real crux of this story. What is now happening to the USD has been in evidence since the 70's so it's been a systematic attack with a clear goal in sight. If the groups doing this does not allow the US to recover ( by reinvestment which seems so as they have already moved so much vital industries elsewhere) then there is not so much that can be done in the short term.


Wouldn’t there be massive shortages, as just in time manufacturing for everything under the sun stopped cold because the USD financial payments for everything from commodities inputs to worker paychecks, to truck drivers, to fuel payments for trucks became worthless?


The financial markets of the world have been preparing for this type of situation as currency controls are systematically disbanded.... What has always benefited US markets will likely now be turned on them and the recovered will be HARD considering the masses of skilled workers in the far east and so many other places. Remember that large corporations already have their manufacturing in SEA and will then simple start using their American labour to further drive down wages in the East if they are given such opportunities by host governments now that the US reach has been weakened so much.


Would the world have to find a new way to clear every financial transaction from a paycheck to even a box of pencils for a factory? Find out how to clear the entire mass of USD transactions that encodes every thing that is made, paid, invested every second everywhere…


And this is why you think the USD will not get any weaker than it already is? Do you realise how much value it has already lost in the last five years or since 1970? The Yen's value has increased three fold in the same period of time while maintaining their high levels of exports and it is quite ,imo, strange to imagine that there are not many currencies that could take it's place.


if the USD collapses the entire world economy stops cold. And then consider the fact that just in time manufacturing means that the entire supply of every thing has about 3 days inventory, and if factories have trouble making payments to suppliers for example, the factories have to stop, and 3 days later, there just aren’t any more critical ‘XXX’ (you fill in the blank)!


And this type of deluded fantasy is very far removed from reality. How do you even come up with these , almost, mindless theories?


Imagine every USD denominated bank account becoming worthless.


Why worthless? Who said anything about worthless? Have you read anything related to economies in your entire life?


Imagine trillions of dollars of retirement funds becoming worthless.


The Russians survived and so does many other nations with similar problems; the world did not end. Why will the dollar suddenly become 'worthless'?


Imagine China losing 2/3 of its trillion dollar foreign reserves, and Japan, and Russia, and Taiwan, and Korea.


Why would they lose it? Will it just 'disappear'? Why do you assume that no one in the world will accept dollars as payments at that stage? Debts will still have to be settled by many third world nations and very many others and the USD will still be around LONG after that. The USD will collapse ( devalue even more than it already has) and many nations will no longer accept it as payment for goods but that most certainly does not mean that it's 'just gone' as you seem to think. The 'market' will quickly establish a new exchange value and things will go on much as before ( Third world nations will still be forced to accept dollars if they say choose to do business with China and many others) but the US fed will not longer have anywhere near such a large market for it's dollars and might be forced to still accept such as settlement of foreign debt. I'm no expert but what you propose is quite far removed from anything that might happen and certainly not anything i suggested.


I dont claim to know everything about economics. But what a weak attempt at some smack talk.
stick to what you do best which is spout off rediculous claims filled with


The truth is the truth, strong or not.



See how easily you just contradicted yourself there.


Where is the contradiction in stating that i do not get excited about talking about the obvious state of the dollar? Why should i not be allowed to warn you of what you refuse to investigate, believe or even consider?



Anyways be prepared for the entire world to suffer a huge setback then.
Im done. Good luck and God speed.


These infantile fantasies of 'taking down the whole world' should stop at some stage and your really getting too damn old to believe such things.

I am NOT done correcting you so feel free to keep right on typing.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
LOL, I find this totally amusing with stellarx, he can post all these sources which prove nothing of what the real economic situation in th world is all about. All it shows is his ignorance of what economics is.
Tyical tactics of borwbeating people with posts which have little or no relevance to the subject being discussed.
Whilst he thinks he is somehow enlightening people, almost everyone just rolls there eyes. I am still waiting for some information which actually shows that he knows anything about what he is talking about. But hey we've all been waiting since he joined up.
As well I also find it funny that ghe tells people to enlighten himslef by reading certain authors when it is obvious to me ( as I hvae read some f these books ) that he hasn't read these books at all.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   


Since we today have the Euro and Yen ( to say nothing of the Yuan) that could easily replace the USD as reserve currency there is no reason to think that things can not changed when the US starts losing the capability to employ force so far and wide.


stellar there was a statement by a fund manager on the yuan(Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum hedge fund with billionaire investor George Soros in the 1970s):

---------------------------------------------
Rogers also talked about one of his favorite topics -- China. He said the 19th century belonged to the British, the 20th century to America, and the 21st century will be owned by China.

He traveled through China by motorcycle and car in the 1990s researching investment ideas and collecting material for his books.

He said he is currently invested in the renminbi and Chinese stocks and is planning to move to Asia in the near future to take advantage of the region's growth story.

Rogers said the Chinese yuan could potentially replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency in about 15-20 years provided the currency becomes freely convertible.

"The renminbi would go higher over the years. they have a huge balance of payments surplus and it's the largest creditor nation in the world."
today.reuters.com... ess

-----------------------------------------------------

He urged investors to switch to the Chinese yuan and Brazilian real in the future ....

i do not see euro as a powerful long term currency ...

China is the future superpower that will replace USA in all spheres (economic,military,cultural etc..)



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I find this totally amusing with stellarx, he can post all these sources which prove nothing of what the real economic situation in th world is all about. All it shows is his ignorance of what economics is.
Tyical tactics of borwbeating people with posts which have little or no relevance to the subject being discussed.
Whilst he thinks he is somehow enlightening people, almost everyone just rolls there eyes. I am still waiting for some information which actually shows that he knows anything about what he is talking about. But hey we've all been waiting since he joined up.
As well I also find it funny that ghe tells people to enlighten himslef by reading certain authors when it is obvious to me ( as I hvae read some f these books ) that he hasn't read these books at all.


Im convinced that no one in their right mind will convince stellar of anything otherwise. I didnt bother reading his incoherent babbleing in response to something I wrote over a week ago. He couldnt argue it then why all of a sudden now? I came by in a school bus, I picked him up, and i took him to school. His sources are a joke just like he is. And to think their are ppl out there that actually take the time to read this schumks propaganda filled crap.

Somebody needs to get themselve a women.


ape

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I use to take the time to read stellars sources but that all ended when he started posting garbage from prison planet and alex jones telling me it's good medicine and i'm a disgrace to my country if I dont bow before alex jones, whats also funny is when he links up the .ru sourceS HAHAHA. stellar lost any credability he had along time ago, I have also noticed he does not respond to some posts that totally debunk what he spews. I know as long as I frequent this site I will always challenge his unfathomable position.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hmmm..

I am no expert on Russia for sure
but I do believe Russia has one of the largest gold reserves in the world. I also know for a fact that according to the World Bank their account is positive. They take in more then they spend, where as America's "account" (I am not sure what the World Bank means by account) is - in the billions.

I know that Russia is a rich government with poor people.. capitalism has not caught up quite as fast as it should have..

So there is no reason why Russia is not as strong as it once was. She lost credibility and respect, not to mention influence when the Soviet Union collapsed.. but Russia is still a nation that could contend (Only China possibly as another choice) with America. No other nation on earth could contend with us (again, maybe china). IMO .. again I have studied the Middle East.. Europe.. very little Russia though.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
lol ruble millionaires? haha I can bet most of them are corrupt and the mafia runs that country.
Lol...well that is a productive comment...for someone that has never seen Russia and most likely Europe.


the day russia is finally showing signs of progression is when people flock to the motherland to invest and start a new life, which is something that is non existant its actually the reverse.
Ok...let me get this straight...Latins flock to the US to work...but that is NOT viewed as a sign of progression in the US...how do you work then, I'm a bit lost.


the fact 'junk' food is banned from russia only tells me regression, thats horrible, people have a right to eat whatveer they want.
Well... Govs banning unhealthy food is not that bad of a "regression" compared to a govt that allows ppl to eat like pigs only to have them flock the hospitals later. Perhaps banning is too much, really telling the public what kind of crap are they eating would be enough I guess, but that is too much for any country, since most sell crap food regardless of its lack of benefits to health...





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join