It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RUSSIA: Attack on Tehran is an Attack on Moscow

page: 27
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Not WW3 may be a war where there is nuclear exchange between the two.
edit on 22-1-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


I don't think that Russia should pre-empt an attack on US-NATO. I would be a blunder. However by 2015 or so, if Russia has not developed a technology to cancel out the ABM system in Poland and Czech republic and rest of Europe, i.e. in other words, watch its own nuclear deterrent cancelled out, then Russia should aggressively have this system removed. Given the US-West approach of not yielding an inch unless their own house is threatened with calamity, the matters can go real hot and even some shots might be fired. It would also be a blunder on Russia's part to sit on a pile of nukes which do not have the responsive i.e. deterrent capability anymore.

Russia might have to place its missiles in friendly nations also in order to tit-for-tat this ABM system. We are talking Cuban missile crisis again. We might even see the weaponization of space, whereby satellites and space stations are loaded with nukes and other killer systems to attack other countries. I think currently there is a treaty out there to 'not weaponize the space' but if matters heat up and alternatives are not there, then countries will go onto space to seek deterrent type protection. However that would be extremely risky as these satellites etc. can fail, burn up and fall into earth and rest is only a matter of wild imagination.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 
Which ever country,the USA or Russia,has the better top secret weapons,will be the country that feels confident enough to provoke war by assaulting the other with those weapons.Imagine "if" Russia and China were able to knock out all US military communication satellites,that would be really bad news,the US would be more or less thrown back into the early 1950's.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


As best as i can tell,if any two countries are going to ignite ww-3,its going to be pakistan and india,who border eachother,who basically hate eachother and they both have nuclear weapons...

That will be the last place in the world where a nuclear exchange will begin. The subcontinent is one place in the world where you will find people who hate each other for centuries continue to coexist at a low level of hostilities.

Sometime in the year 2002 when there was a huge standoff between both the countries with both of them amassing troops on the border, the then Defence Minsiter of India, George Fernandes, dismissed speculations about nuclear exchange saying that no one in the subcontinent is stupid enough to use nukes. I can't find another instance where a country spoke for its adversary with such confidence.


But even if I am wrong, not sure why that would lead to a WWIII. Who else is going to take what side in such a confrontation? There will be a lot of dead Indians and Pakistanis, a few cities wiped out on both sides and huge radiation fall out, but since none of that is preventable by any 3rd party joining the confronation, who would be interested in dying/getting wiped out along with Pakistanis and Indians? Sure, some Jihadists waiting to die at the drop of a hat may find their direct ticket to heaven and join the dead Pakistanis, but don't see another state joining the confrontation to turn it into anything other than a localised business.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Observor
 


I don't think that Russia should pre-empt an attack on US-NATO. I would be a blunder. However by 2015 or so, if Russia has not developed a technology to cancel out the ABM system in Poland and Czech republic and rest of Europe, i.e. in other words, watch its own nuclear deterrent cancelled out, then Russia should aggressively have this system removed. Given the US-West approach of not yielding an inch unless their own house is threatened with calamity, the matters can go real hot and even some shots might be fired. It would also be a blunder on Russia's part to sit on a pile of nukes which do not have the responsive i.e. deterrent capability anymore.

Russia might have to place its missiles in friendly nations also in order to tit-for-tat this ABM system. We are talking Cuban missile crisis again. We might even see the weaponization of space, whereby satellites and space stations are loaded with nukes and other killer systems to attack other countries. I think currently there is a treaty out there to 'not weaponize the space' but if matters heat up and alternatives are not there, then countries will go onto space to seek deterrent type protection. However that would be extremely risky as these satellites etc. can fail, burn up and fall into earth and rest is only a matter of wild imagination.


You are kidding right? Do you honestly think the U.S. and Canada do not have a massive and Highly Accurate Anti-Missle system installed...for years now? All this crap about the ABM's that were to be installed in Poland and talk about upgrades to a 3rd or 4th Gen ABM system just installed in Alaska and on ships around the world is a SMOKE SCREEN for the existance of the Largest and most complex and accurat AMB system in the Word.

With the addition of the Free Elecron Laser system both on land and on ships...the system will be almost lock-tight.

One thing that I and some other people I know....laugh our asses off...is how the World never believes when the U.S. Military makes a statement that it doesn't have Troops or Specific capabilities in a certain area of the world or has developed it....some countries...actually most ...SCREAM...Yes you do! Don't tell us that this or that system or deployment isn't a VIABLE threat to our defenses!

But when storries come out about Super Advanced Systems that are ACTIVE NOW!....people just say it's all bull and no one has these capabilities. LOL! This just kills me! LOL!

If people around the world are stupid enough to believe that the U.S....given the amount of years that have past an increase in Countries with Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Capabilities....and have DONE NOTHING to counter this threat....then just go on thinking that! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


I don't think that Russia should pre-empt an attack on US-NATO. I would be a blunder.

I think your suggestion is contradicted by your own analysis following it. If you are using doublespeak like Westerners, fine. Otherwise you may have to revisit that suggestion.

However by 2015 or so, if Russia has not developed a technology to cancel out the ABM system in Poland and Czech republic and rest of Europe, i.e. in other words, watch its own nuclear deterrent cancelled out, then Russia should aggressively have this system removed.

How does Russia, when it can no longer threaten the West on its soil, "aggressively" have Western defense positions removed? How can Iran "aggreesively" make the West back off today? Russia's position then would be no different from Iran's position today.

Given the US-West approach of not yielding an inch unless their own house is threatened with calamity, the matters can go real hot and even some shots might be fired.

Not sure who will fire the first shot. If it is Russia, it will be a pre-emptive attack. If it is the West it will be fullscale invasion and not restricted to a few shots.

It would also be a blunder on Russia's part to sit on a pile of nukes which do not have the responsive i.e. deterrent capability anymore.

Of course.

Russia might have to place its missiles in friendly nations also in order to tit-for-tat this ABM system. We are talking Cuban missile crisis again.

Who would want to host Russian missiles, under Russian control, thus becoming targets for the West? Exactly which country would want to commit suicide for Russia? Should the West start bombing such a country, would Russia come to their defence by launching attacks directly against the West? In your scenario, these countries with Russian missiles are better placed to launch them effectively than Russia herself. So Russia cannot retaliate against a Western attack on them, but they can retaliate against a Western attack on Russia. That would be like them guarranteeing Russia's safety instead of Russia guarranteeing their safety. Which country would want to sacrifice itself to guarrantee Russia's safety and why?

However if the strategy is to pick allies already under Western crosshairs and deploy the missiles that can reach the West, it might work. Because then Russia would be looking like guarranteeing the safety of those nations in the crosshairs of the West while also ensuring her own safety. Which is what I was suggesting earlier, that Russia deploy the ballistic missiles in Syria and Iran who are already under Western threat and would absolutely welcome the capability of launching attacks directly against Western nations should they be attacked. But if Russia wanted to pick the strategy with a country that is not under any direct immediate threat from the West, it would fail miserably. That nation gains no advantage while making itself a target of the West. There is also no guarrantee Russia will give the codes to launch the missiles even in the face of a Western attack against that country.

We might even see the weaponization of space, whereby satellites and space stations are loaded with nukes and other killer systems to attack other countries. I think currently there is a treaty out there to 'not weaponize the space' but if matters heat up and alternatives are not there, then countries will go onto space to seek deterrent type protection. However that would be extremely risky as these satellites etc. can fail, burn up and fall into earth and rest is only a matter of wild imagination.

If the Russian plan of containing the West is dependent on good fortune, so be it. But I would strongly disagree with it, especially because Russia does have the capability today of declaring that they won't tolerate any more Western expansion. If she is reluctant to do so, she will reap the consequences.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Which ever country,the USA or Russia,has the better top secret weapons,will be the country that feels confident enough to provoke war by assaulting the other with those weapons.Imagine "if" Russia and China were able to knock out all US military communication satellites,that would be really bad news,the US would be more or less thrown back into the early 1950's.

West has been forever trying to expand its hold on the world through military might, while others are merely trying to retain the control on their own territories by their military strength.

Even if either Russia or China were to surpass the West in military capability, neither would be initiating an attack on the West. However if they were to lose their capability to resist a Western expansion into their territories, they would be sitting ducks and the West would overrun them militarily to impose its own will. China doesn't face that prospect immediately, but Russia does.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by blocula
Which ever country,the USA or Russia,has the better top secret weapons,will be the country that feels confident enough to provoke war by assaulting the other with those weapons.Imagine "if" Russia and China were able to knock out all US military communication satellites,that would be really bad news,the US would be more or less thrown back into the early 1950's.

West has been forever trying to expand its hold on the world through military might, while others are merely trying to retain the control on their own territories by their military strength.

Even if either Russia or China were to surpass the West in military capability, neither would be initiating an attack on the West. However if they were to lose their capability to resist a Western expansion into their territories, they would be sitting ducks and the West would overrun them militarily to impose its own will. China doesn't face that prospect immediately, but Russia does.


You guy's are kidding right? The only thing that is going on is that Russia is pissed off that so many X-Territories of the Former Soviet Union are desperatly trying to become a part of NATO because of the way they were treated for over 40 Years.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
You guy's are kidding right? The only thing that is going on is that Russia is pissed off that so many X-Territories of the Former Soviet Union are desperatly trying to become a part of NATO because of the way they were treated for over 40 Years.
Split Infinity

Yeah right! Iraq and Libya are former Soviet territories and so are Iran and Syria



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


While Russians are behind the west in technological terms, they are not so much behind that they would not know that a super advanced ABM has already been deployed that would cancel out their offensive capability in terms of nuclear missiles. If that was the case, Russians would have gone crazy out of fear and started throwing all sorts of efforts to cancel this system out.

Btw, do not mention the FEL as a sole property of the west. You have been spanked and straightened on it already.

edit on 23-1-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Today missiles need not be sitting on launchers to be deployed. Lots of cruise missiles and anti ship missiles can be covertly in place without more than a dozen people knowing about them. The point is right i.e. which country would want to take enmity with West for Russia. Russia might have to devise technologies to counter the western aggressive posture and abilities that threaten to negate Russia's nuclear deterrence.

Atleast regarding Iran and Syria, Russia should covertly deploy some real sharp weapons for just in case scenario.
edit on 23-1-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
Today missiles need not be sitting on launchers to be deployed. Lots of cruise missiles and anti ship missiles can be covertly in place without more than a dozen people knowing about them. The point is right i.e. which country would want to take enmity with West for Russia. Russia might have to devise technologies to counter the western aggressive posture and abilities that threaten to negate Russia's nuclear deterrence.

Since we are a while from the West directly launching an attack against Russia, if the others who are likely to be targeted ahead of Russia are given the technology to devastate the West in case of an attack on them, they would take care of the West before Russia ever has a need to.

Atleast regarding Iran and Syria, Russia should covertly deploy some real sharp weapons for just in case scenario.

Hopefully they have already done that and should the West attack either Iran or Syria this nuisance would be dealt with once and for all.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
All that needs to happen is a few meetings,a few signatures and a few firm handshakes and Russia,China and North Korea are allied as one and its game over for the USA and whatever other countries that "might" send their people to die...List of countries by number of troops > en.wikipedia.org...
_________________

State- Active- Reserve- Paramilitary- Total
_________________

Russian Federation- 1,027,000- 20,000,000- 449,000- 21,476,000

Republic of China- 2,285,000- 800,000- 1,500,000- 4,585,000

Republic of Korea- 1,106,000- 8,200,000- 189,000- 9,495,000
_________________

United States- 1,468,364- 1,458,500- 11,035- 2,937,899

Israel- 176,500- 565,000- 8,050- 749,550

England- 197,780- 212,400- 0- 410,180
_________________

What else is there to say? In a conventional ground war,the winner is painfully obvious...
edit on 23-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
While Russians are behind the west in technological terms, they are not so much behind that they would not know that a super advanced ABM has already been deployed that would cancel out their offensive capability in terms of nuclear missiles. If that was the case, Russians would have gone crazy out of fear and started throwing all sorts of efforts to cancel this system out.

If the West had the technology to neutralise a ballistic missile attack by Russia regardless of whether Russia would go crazy over that, the West would have been openly threatening Russia with consequences for not supporting them. Remember "You are with us or against us"? That is what we would have been hearing at the drop of a hat. Psychopaths who believe themselves to be invincible won't be mincing their words.

Since they don't do it, you can be 100% sure they are vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack.

A few years ago a Chinese military officer, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu addressed foreign correspondents and warned of US-China nuclear war over Taiwan and hundreds of US cities would be taken out by Chinese missiles. The US military analysts were falling over each other saying it was "mere speculation", "not offical policy" (as if a serving Chinese General would mouth off stuff without official sanction) etc. But since then the US made no statement about Taiwan that China would frown upon.
Not something you would expect if they thought they were immune to a ballistic missile attack.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
All that needs to happen is a few meetings,a few signatures and a few firm handshakes and Russia,China and North Korea are allied as one and its game over for the USA...

Since no one is looking to invade and occupy the US even that is not needed. A firm warning by Russia and China that unilateral adventures by the West without UN sanction could result in direct confrontation with Russia, China or both would be enough to put a stop to this expansionism.

After that the US will collapse without anyone's help.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


If such a military alliance like SCO is made then many other countries like Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, India, Venenzuela, Brazil, and several many others will not only beg but also pay to join in. The world only respects the strong and brave.

The Warsaw pact lost out due to the economic and social system it followed which was no match for the free and market oriented economy of the west. With mostly similar system at place already a SCO type alliance can trample on the US-NATO and leave it in ruins.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 
Invade and occupy the "oil" countries,thats what Russia,China and North Korea could do together as allies and that would instantly drag the USA and maybe Israel and England into the conflict and as i showed above,the so called "bad guys" would out number the so called "good guys" like 10 to 1 in troop strengths...around 35,000,000 to 4,000,000 actually...Not good at all...


edit on 23-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
If such a military alliance like SCO is made then many other countries like Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, India, Venenzuela, Brazil, and several many others will not only beg but also pay to join in. The world only respects the strong and brave.

The Warsaw pact lost out due to the economic and social system it followed which was no match for the free and market oriented economy of the west. With mostly similar system at place already a SCO type alliance can trample on the US-NATO and leave it in ruins.

No military alliance is needed to leave the US-NATO in ruins. Simply deny them an opportunity to hunt at will by threatening them with annihilation should they attempt to bypass the UN and just block them at the UN. They will collapse under their own weight when other countries feel secure from a military threat from the NATO.

Negotiate an international trading currency which leaves no room for Western manipulation and you leave them in financial ruins. The only ones they will be a threat to after that will be themselves and no one else.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Invade and occupy the "oil" countries,thats what Russia,China and North Korea could do together as allies and that would instantly drag the USA and maybe Israel and England into the conflict and as i showed above,the so called "bad guys" would out number the so called "good guys" like 10 to 1 in troop strengths...around 35,000,000 to 4,000,000 actually...Not good at all...

Russia is an oil and gas exporter. China can buy all the oil and gas she needs. Not sure why either of them would be interested in military adventures for something they already have or can so easily obtain.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by blocula
Invade and occupy the "oil" countries,thats what Russia,China and North Korea could do together as allies and that would instantly drag the USA and maybe Israel and England into the conflict and as i showed above,the so called "bad guys" would out number the so called "good guys" like 10 to 1 in troop strengths...around 35,000,000 to 4,000,000 actually...Not good at all...

Russia is an oil and gas exporter. China can buy all the oil and gas she needs. Not sure why either of them would be interested in military adventures for something they already have or can so easily obtain.
Sounds like your talking about the USA,who exports most or all or its alaskan oil to other countries and then invades the middle east under false pretenses to try and forcibly obtain theirs...
edit on 23-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join