Pole Position : More U.S. Troops Sent to Russian Border

Originally posted by CO Vet
Seeing as "President" Putin's intentions are appearing to be the reconstruction of the the USSR, it only makes sense the free countries of Eastern Europe would want to do anything to not fall back under the rule of the tyrannical Mother Russia.

Indeed.Puny Putin miscalculated badly.He didnt count on the citizenery to be ready for this little stunt.We should continue training georgian troops and equipping them.Russia has no say in the matter as georgia can equip its military the way it sees fit.
I saw the deputy prime minister of Russia on the BBC ,and he looks like a zombie.I dont even know if he blinked and kept repeating what was said since day one.LOL!Russian troops out of Georgia including those poor excuse for peacekeepers who are nothing more than bandits and thieves.

This is just getting worse!

Keep in mind that the powers that be need one more world war for the final stages of their plans to create the NWO. I am sad to admit that I think it's drawing near.

So far the U.S. has seen no major Russian pullout of Georgia ...www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by NinguLilium
A snippet from "50 Things They Don't Want You To Know"

Norway and the United States had launched a research rocket (for charting the Arctic) from a
Norwegian island. Following standard protocol, Norway had alerted Russia in advance about the
firing,

I am not sure that the Russians were in fact ever warned but i will be happy to see a link that they were and that they were told that this rocket was going to resemble a trident launch in such detail.

The launch was no rarity. Andoya Island is the site of a sounding rocket launch facility, from which many scientific experiments have been fired. But the Black Brant XII had a different configuration from that of other rockets typically launched from Andoya, one that, to the low-resolution Russian early-warning radars, made it indistinguishable from a Trident missile in powered flight.
IEEE Spectrum Fig.2. The flight trajectory for a Black Brant XII sounding rocket is shown beside those of a Trident C-4 and Trident D-5. The Black Brant's fourth stage burns out at about the same altitude as the second stages for the submarine-launched ballistic missiles. All three types of missile eject their nosecones and some other components at similar altitudes. The yellow band indicates how the three rocket types would have looked to Russian early-warning radars.

The coincidences that led the Black Brant to be mistaken for a Trident are uncanny, and should be taken as a sobering warning that accidents in these early-warning systems can and will happen again. The rocket's first and second stages were discarded at a low altitude, never rising to a height where they could be seen by the radar. The third-stage motor also burned out below the radar horizon, but was then carried over the horizon by its momentum. At that point, it was trailing the Black Brant at a speed and distance similar to those between a Trident and its discarded first stage. As the Black Brant's fourth stage rose higher over the radar horizon, its velocity and altitude resembled those of a Trident during its second-stage powered flight. Add to these circumstances the Black Brant's ejection of its nosecone at an altitude and speed similar to those of a Trident. That event led to yet another radar signature tending to confirm that the unknown rocket was a Trident [Fig. 2]. It is a near certainty that the computers on Russia's early-warning radars were programmed to issue an alarm when these signatures were observed in the radar data.

Of course, the coincidences do not fully explain why a single Trident launch--one that was heading away from Russia--would generate a false alert. But the trouble was compounded because, as the NASA radar track of the Black Brant showed, its flight took it directly across the path an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) would take from the main U.S. Minuteman III missile fields to Moscow. In that trajectory, the rocket might have been a multiple-warhead Trident intended to create a pattern of nuclear explosions at high altitudes that would have blinded the radar.

www.armscontrol.ru...

but the message never made its way to the right people. In the middle of the night,
Russian radar detected what looked like a nuclear missile launched toward Moscow from a USsubmarine.

And as the previous quote indicated that is exactly what it looked like!

Early on the morning of January 25, 1995, Norwegian scientists and their American colleagues launched the largest sounding rocket ever from Andoya Island off the coast of Norway. [Sounding rockets collect data on atmospheric conditions from various altitudes.] Designed to study the northern lights, the rocket followed a trajectory to nearly 930 miles altitude but away from the Russian Federation. To Russian radar technicians, the flight appeared similar to one that a U.S. Trident missile would take to blind Russian radars by detonating a nuclear warhead high in the atmosphere

www.pbs.org...

The military immediately called President Boris Yeltsin, awakening him with the news that the
country appeared to be under attack (no word on whether Yeltsin had been in a vodka-induced
drunken slumber). The groggy president, for the first time ever, activated the infamous black
suitcase that contains the codes for launching nuclear missiles.

The suitcases are automatically activated and there are three of them; no one person in the USSR can launch a nuclear war. As for the drunk comment it's a relatively well established fact that Churchill were rarely entirely sober between 1939 and 1945.

General Vladimir Dvorkin

PBS : Our information was that it came within two minutes of the President having to make a decision in that particular instance. Does this not give you some cause for concern?

VD: No, that is all in the land of fantasy. I will say it again. No president, no matter what President it is, will ever make a decision about launch-on-warning based on information about one rocket or missile or even...two or three missiles. So, I think that all concerns in that regard are just wasted time. And I don't think that there is sufficient grounds for Americans to be concerned or worried about our control system. I think you should be more concerned with the falling birth rates in Russia, than a decreasing control system. Because that does not lead to the improvement of our economic state and also to the improvement of the military might and security. The United States does need a strong, big power that is economically strong....I have deep respect for the Americans and for the United States and I think that gives me some kind of a moral right to say that sometimes, you overly concentrate or overly focus on some problems that do not really have any ground. Russia is not [a] country. Russia is [a] continent, and without Russia, to provide global strategic stability [would be] impossible. And Russia could potentially become a very powerful center of stability in its half of the world. We don't have any ideological contradictions and we don't have any major economic claims against each other, so I think that we should become the centers of a stability in our respective continents and we should jointly provide for global stability, and I hope that eventually that will happen.

www.pbs.org...

As the rocket climbed, it was detected by the Olenegorsk early warning radar station in Russia. To the radar operators, the rocket appeared similar in speed and flight pattern to a U.S. submarine-launched Trident missile. Russian President Boris Yeltsin was notified immediately and the "nuclear briefcase" used to authorize nuclear launch was automatically activated. No warning was issued to the Russian populace of any incident; it was reported in the news a week afterward.

en.wikipedia.org...

The duty general received his information from the radar operator on a special notification terminal, Krokus. He then passed it to the Kavkaz, a complex network of cables, radio signals, satellites and relays that is at the heart of the Russian command and control. From there, it caused an alert to go off on each of the three nuclear "footballs" in the Russian system: one with Yeltsin, one with then-Defense Minister Pavel Grachev and a third with the chief of the General Staff, then Mikhail Kolesnikov. The black suitcases were nicknamed Cheget.

The command-and-control system "was now operating in combat mode," Devyanin said. Yeltsin immediately got on the telephone with the others holding the black suitcases, and they monitored the rocket's flight on their terminals. (The actual launch orders are not given from the suitcase, only the permission to fire. The launching process, including ciphers, is controlled by the military's General Staff, which, in some circumstances, is authorized to act on its own.)

www.washingtonpost.com...

He had just a few minutes to decide whether to launch any or all of the country's 2,000 hair-trigger nukes at the US.
Luckily for the entire world, while Yeltsin was conferring with his highest advisors, Russia's
radar showed that the missile was headed out to sea. The red alert was cancelled. World War III
was averted.

Actually , according to the sources, he had ten minutes and given the limited nature of a single missile strike they could have taken more time or even waited for Moscow's ABM defenses to take care of it. It's know that in a previous false scare the apparent launch of 5-7 missile from continental US ICBM fields were ignored as the duty officer decided that no one was going to start a world war with five missiles. In fact he didn't even pass on the warning!

Continued

Whether that effect was a totally unexpected phenomenon is hard to know. That may have been the first time this rare alignment had occurred since the system became operational the previous year. Press interviews with Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, the officer in charge of Serpukhov-15, the secret bunker from which the Soviet Union monitored its early-warning satellites, indicated that the new system reported the launch of several missiles from the U.S. continental missile fields. Petrov had been told repeatedly that the United States would launch a massive nuclear strike designed to overwhelm Soviet forces in a single strike.

Why did that false alarm fail to trigger a nuclear war? Perhaps the Russian command did not want to start a war on the basis of data from a new and unique system. On the other hand, if the sun glint had caused the system to report hundreds of missile launches, then the Soviet Union might have mistakenly launched its missiles. Petrov said that he refused to pass the alert to his superiors because "when people start a war, they don't start it with only five missiles. You can do little damage with just five missiles."

www.pbs.org...

What makes this even more nerve-racking is that Russia's early-warning systems are in much
worse shape now than they were in '95. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
explains that while Russia needs 21 satellites to have a complete, fully-redundant network
capable of accurately detecting missile launches, as of 1999 they have only three.

According to Russian Space Forces Commander Colonel-General Vladimir Popovkin, there are approximately 60 Russian military satellites currently in orbit.[1] This represents a decrease of two-and-a-half fold since 1990.[1] However, there has been an increase in the percentage of satellites functioning within their normal service lives from 19% in 1999 to 40%.[1] Popovkin points to this as a qualitative change in Russia's military satellite fleet and notes that Russia is again testing new technologies.[1]

cns.miis.edu...

However, we can be fairly confident that Yeltsin's football showed that Russia was not under attack and that the Russian early-warning system was functioning perfectly. In addition to the string of radars surrounding the border of the former Soviet Union, Russia had inherited a complete fleet of early-warning satellites that, even by 1995, still maintained continuous 24-hour coverage of the U.S. continental missile fields. In the early 1990s Russia had still managed to launch replacement satellites for its early-warning system as the previous ones died out -- thereby retaining continuous coverage. Because of those satellites, Yeltsin's display must have shown that no massive attack was lurking just below the horizon.

www.pbs.org...

You can see for yourself , on page 47, that any attack on Russia would have had to be scheduled to fit in the presumed times when the EW system were not working 'well enough' to notice even the full scale attack that could reliably defeat Russian ABM defenses.

www.princeton.edu...

And since we can only go by what is officially disclosed it's in fact hard to say what the true capabilities of their EW satellites are or even how many are currently in operation.

Heaven help us
if some Russian bureaucrat again forgets to tell the command and control center that a nearby
country is launching a research rocket.

Maybe these helps somewhat to alley your mostly unfounded fears?

Its most visible guard against a calamity is the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. There, beginning Dec. 30, Russian and American officers will sit side by side at computer screens 24-hours a day. Their job: Monitor data from U.S. Space Command sensors, primarily long-range radars and satellites that detect the heat of a rocket blastoff.

"We really do not worry about Russia, missiles going off, or early-warning systems getting false reports or anything like that," said Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre. "We're confident that will not be the case."

Added Peter Verga, a Pentagon policy-maker, "If an early warning radar in Russia fails, we think it would be because the power went out, which is a local time-zone problem, and not because there's a fundamental problem within the system."

The department, which has spent $3.6 billion on year-2000 compliance, has invested $10 million in Russian weapons computers to ensure they don't misread the date rollover to 2000. Technicians also ridded the Moscow-Washington "hot line" of any potential bugs and installed backup telephone connections.

At Peterson, a missile launch anywhere in the world will be picked up by Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites and then tracked by radars.

cndyorks.gn.apc.org...

On 11 February, an unnamed Russian Defence Ministry was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying that the existing system was perfectly adequate: "In coordination with other structures, Russia's early-warning system fully monitors the possible launch of ground- or sea-based US intercontinental ballistic missiles."

www.acronym.org.uk...

And given the fact that the Russians were still deplying new nuclear missiles in the mid 90's i think the following speaks a great deal as to just how concerned they weren't about a 'surprise' attack.

The two nations have explored waysof addressing the problem at least since last year, when another CBO study suggested giving Russia access to the U.S. early warning satellite system. Faced with considerable political pressure not to release such sensitive information to the Russians, Daschle asked the budget office to consider "nontraditional" alternatives.

Since then, according to the letter, the CBO has learned that Russia has built seven new early warning satellites, but "is unable or unwilling to devote the resources necessary to launch them."

The United States could buy Russian rockets -- which are less expensive than American rockets -- and launch six of the satellites for about $200 million, the CBO said.

The letter lists several arguments against the option, including the fact that if Russia were sufficiently worried about false alarms, it could cough up the money itself. In addition, the six satellites would not allow Russia to monitor launches around the globe, only in the United States.

www.fas.org...

Whatever the case may be they have quite sufficient resources to launch many additional satellites and the fact that they chose not to in my mind proves that they were not worried.

Messing around with Russia is a bad idea. Especially since it was the Russian government who were saving the people from the Georgian government.

But some would just say that that is much like a lamb being saved from a Jackals by a Lion....

Stellar

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
you know it just goes to prove a point. If the US government does something the europeans don't like they talk Smack. But the minute there is a problem that they can't handle they come running to the US for help.

The European members of NATO don't seem to have nearly as much of a problem with Russian moves as the US does so where does the crying for help nonsense come from?

what this does is setup a very scary scenario. when the US troops man those missle sites and Russia makes the unwise move to attack those sites The US will have no choice but to declare war on Russia. my only hope is that it doesn't go nuclear. But for it to not go that Hot the US would have to pull all troops out of the middle east and send them towards Russia.

European countries have armies of their own, btw.

for those that don't think this will be WWIII I have news for you. If Russia attacks any NATO Country every member Country has to declare war on Russia and come to that nations aid.

Yup and we all know that treaties have always been respected and that nuclear annihilation ( at least in theory) wont lead to the type of unrests in some countries that will force their governments to stay neutral.

And Poland is a NATO member. If Russia sends its tanks in mass rolling into any NATO country the NATO playbook Says to Nuke the Russians!

And as we all know Russian nukes just wont work well enough to do the same against the continental USA/Europe?

I live southwest of the airforce base that's the home of the B-2's and i live under where they refuel after take off before going on a mission. I'll let you guys know if i see the entire b-2 fleet leaving Missouri.

Or if we don't hear from you we will know that one of the first targets of the Russian boomers scored a hit? Who wants to live close to one of the two ( Diego Garcia? ) airbases from where B-2's can operate? Not me!

Guys we are in cold war 2.0 right now! If Russia just keeps making threats we'll be ok. If they act on those threats we're in big trouble.

It wont be a good year for many, i'm sure.

A war with Russia will not be easy! It will not be desert storm all over again! It will be a long hard fight with no winners. Get ready for a national draft guys if this don't go nuclear!

I am confident that it wont and especially not over this recent tiff. Both sides knew what they were getting themselves into and both had largely predictable political responses.... No one got surprised and the MSM is playing their part.

Stellar

Originally posted by SectionEight
Here is the scenario.
The EU gets all emblazened with self pride and admonishes the US for the missile shield, thinking they don't need the US for self defense and the geopolitical trouble it is causing them.

Europeans know and understand the results of war better than most and while there might be a whole lot of pride i doubt they will go to war with anything approaching the low levels of zeal you find in the American population. While it's true that Europe is militarily strong they could be much more so , and would have been, if they were not smart enough to accept that they could have more tanks or national health care. Since it's obvious what they chose it's in my opinion also obvious that they would accept greater levels of defense spending if the US government were not so well able to fool the American public in protecting Europeans that could afford to do it themselves. The joke has always been on American citizens...

The US under a new Obama presidency engages in a policy of retreat and self isolationism.

Provided that someone manages to steal Ron Paul/Ralph Naders ( enter a few other names) brain and somehow exchange it with Obama's. Obama is a very typical right winger and he is not going to seriously change the US national security states imperialist policies. If he tries he will be assassinated by his owners presuming that isn't the plan any ways.

We withdraw from NATO and pull all troops out of Europe and elswhere across the globe.

The world would be so lucky. Not bloody likely.

This scenario is quite possible and Putin will analyze the totally defenseless EU as a go ahead to reannex the former soviet eastern european states.

A defenseless EU ? Don't you think the Russian population understands that they would be the clear aggressors against the largely prostrate Europe? In a conventional aggressive war i think that the EU might possibly hold it's own ( Russians don't want to fight even Chechen's) and a nuclear attack on Europe would not only be a political disaster but also a economic one for Russia. It just would not make sense to do anything other than what they have been doing with the American presence.

In the EU's folly they will try to respond millitarily and get a thorough spanking from the full force of Russia's millitary.

I am well aware of the awesome conventional power Russia still has ( twenty thousand tanks, as much artillery and a great deal of most other necessities of war, most being in storage on the other side of the Urals) but there is more to war than just having plenty of weapon systems and people to use them . To go up against just a unified Germany and Poland wont be simple and if you don't make inroads fast enough the mobilization power that France/Spain/Britain/Germany/Italy/Switzerland/Norway/Sweden/Finland/Austria can array against you is going to have you in fighting hard very soon.

It's not that i don't see how the RF can't win but just that it wont be easy even if the US left the continent. As i said Putin and friends are doing their best to keep up appearances and i am of the opinion that they are not doing this because they WANT to but because the Russian population wont accept things as they used to be and wont fight for such a abusive regime.

Either way you rarely win wars with people who don't want to fight, especially not when the other guys wont give up, which so eloquently explains why the Russians couldn't prevail in Afghanistan any more than the US could in Vietnam.

If Russia is threatened with losing air superiority, it will, it must actually according to their doctrine, whip out the nukes.

They will have sufficient public support to respond with a nuclear attack on NATO if NATO initiates but not the other way round. Frankly Putin seems to have fare more resistance in his military than Bush does.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX



It is apparent you have no idea what you are on about.
Obama is not a typical right winger like you stated, he is the exact opposite, in fact he is the most left wing senator of the entire US Senate and has the voting record to prove it, besides Obama is obviously a Democrat which shows you have no idea what you are taking about. This leads me to conclude the rest of your response is made up on false information also.

Point two, Putin runs a country where there is no freedom of the press. They do not care what the public opinion is, they tell the public what their opinion is, with an iron fist.

Originally posted by SectionEight
It is apparent you have no idea what you are on about.
Obama is not a typical right winger like you stated, he is the exact opposite, in fact he is the most left wing senator of the entire US Senate and has the voting record to prove it,

I have in fact taken a look at this voting record and despite all the propaganda to the contrary there is not much 'leftist' about it and certainly not so by European standards.

besides Obama is obviously a Democrat which shows you have no idea what you are taking about.

He may be a 'democrat' in the American lexicon but doesn't that just show how little Americans know about democracy and what being 'leftist' actually entails?

This leads me to conclude the rest of your response is made up on false information also.

So i am being criticised by someone who attempts to find excuses to save himself the trouble of reading a few more lines? One of my few remaining questions has to do with how effective you think your strategy is going to be when i keep on posting including more sources ( about that posting record for instance) as we proceed?

Point two, Putin runs a country where there is no freedom of the press.

Well in my estimation/knowledge/opinion the Russian media is not very free but given how many years they have had to practice they are doing pretty well as compared to the oh-so-free US MSM. It's not that i don't think reporters without borders don't have a agenda or can't be wrong but i think the information is still revealing as to just how much better other countries seem to be doing.

en.wikipedia.org...

They do not care what the public opinion is, they tell the public what their opinion is, with an iron fist.

In fact i think Russians have grown quite accustomed to not believing much anything they hear on the news they suspect to be run by the government. That's my opinion any ways and since Putin isn't invading other countries, and largely getting away with, ( nudge nudge, wink wink) it i will presume that he doesn't think he will be able to sell the lies required. In fact i would be most interested to know if Russians are buying the excuses as given for the invasion of Georgia....

In conclusion i know you want to hate Obama but your wrong to attempt doing so on the basis that he is some kind of 'liberal/leftist' who is going to change America to a 'socialist' state or some such nonsense.

projects.washingtonpost.com...

As you can see he votes with the party when he votes at all ( missed 45%) so there is absolutely nothing strange about him and thus very little change in any direction in store for Americans. It's more of the same nonsense and the nonsense just increase when they reach office and start doing the reactionary things they accuse the GOP of.

Stellar