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]

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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...