RUSSIA: Attack on Tehran is an Attack on Moscow

reply to post by Observor
Remember when the towers collapsed on 911 and all the iranians that were jumping up and down in the streets yelling and cheering and chanting death to the americans?...Hmmmm,well imo,the usa should have without warning pounded and slammed them with multiple air strikes just for doing that,while they were doing that and we should have done it for all those people who were killed on 911 who were silenced forever...

What would roosevelt,eisenhower,patton and macarthur have done to the country that dared send them footage of americans having their heads sawed and hacked off while crying and screaming for their mothers?

They would have sent over a million troops,five thousand tanks and two thousand heavy bombers and crushed and obliterated them and their cities..

Because during ww-2 the usa fought with brass knuckles and now we dont want to upset the enemy too much so we fight them with boxing gloves...

reply to post by victor7

What costs are you talking about for joining the alliance?

Did you read my entire response before asking that question?

The costs would be for the resources that they need from the world under Western control. They control the costs by controlling the currency that those resources are traded in.

Nations which have lots of surplus cash can invest into high tech research of Russia and gain valuable knowledge and exposure for their own domestic industries.

Once the West controls the critical resources, no one will have any surplus cash left, because all their exports to the Western controlled world will be enough to pay for the critical resources. You may be thinking just of oil and gas. Start thinking of stuff like rare earth metals that are indispensable for electronics too. At the end of the day, if you don't have it and they control it, you will pay what they demand. End of story.

The power of the alliance is in unity of action.

What is the action?

Right now the 'all mighty' brave US-NATO are defeating small nations with armies hollowed by sanctions and resulting defections of troops.

What makes you think any country is immune to the application of the same formula, destruction through isolation before take over? Never saw either China or Russia resist that, not even at the UN.

Do they have the 'mental capacity' to take on a fully fed and armed military of even medium size nation, which armed with Yakhonts, S300s, Su30s and long range missiles and others?

May be not. But they don't need to, do they, when both Russia and China are so willing to join them in imposing sanctions on any and every country? Look at China. EU decides to stop buying Iranian oil and China is blackmailing Iran to sell its oil cheap. Does that look like a country that anyone would want to ever ally with?

Heck neither of the countries Iraq, Serbia, Libya resorted to terrorism to inflict losses. Wonder what would have happened if Serbians in Europe had done something brave and suicidal in response to relentless bombing of their civilian populations. West is not willing to take losses in even few thousands. If they have to face loss of say 1000 soldiers killed in a week, they will be mentally vaccumed, no knowing what to do next.

And you think the same guys who cannot take a few thousand military casualties would respond to annihilate the world and bring an end to their own lives in the process if a few million civilians were vapourised in their homes?

For any strategy to be successful, it has to be based on reality of the adversaries' behaviour and not what you can imagine it to be. Everybody tries to imagine that the Westerners can't take a few thousand in military casualties and a strategy that could inflict that would somehow keep them at bay. Let me for a second pretend that it is true. In which case the Western strategy itself would be to minimise their casualties in war. Look at Libya. They didn't even bother to send any troops. They just kept relentlessly bombing from air. Suppose Libya had anti-aircraft artillery, they would have conducted the bombings using missiles. Suppose the victim of the aggression, like Iran, had missiles that can reach the Western ships from which the missiles are launched, they would use long range missiles from their own territory. Does anyone have the capability to counter that? Then they are safe from Western aggression, otherwise they are not. The West uses the military strategy that is the least expensive in terms of men and material and they are not restricted to one strategy for all. Unless you have a strategy that causes them unacceptable losses, no matter what strategy they pick to attack you are toast. It is not necessary for the West to stick to one set of tactics, ground attacks, aerial bombings, missile attacks or long range missiles attacks or even nuclear attacks throughout a campaign. They can switch them as they please depending on the progress of the conflict. In addition, the immediate objectives of the West are not necessarily what they are projected to be. So the West can succeed in fulfilling its real objectives even when they appear to be failing to achieve the publicly declared objectives. Best example is Vietnam. The objective of the West in Vietnam was not to bring the Vietcong to heels, although that was not unwelcome. The objective was to ensure there are no more countries that fall out of the Western influence than already did, by showing them what the cost of such an adventure would be and that objective was definitely achieved. Vietnam won the battle for sure, but the West won the war because there were no socialist revolutions in the region after that.

Contd...

reply to post by victor7

...Contd

Furthermore, SCO is not yet a military alliance willing to provide security for its members, once it becomes one then members like Iran, Syria and others with substantial military capacities will be more than welcome. Currently SCO is merely a political dialogue on the basis of BRICSA.

Doesn't that make refusal to admit Iran as a full time member doubly funny and the "rule" of not admitting those under UN sanctions ridiculous?

Also China is dependent on resources regarding energy and for those it depends on middle east and Russia. India gets its oil from Iran and others in middle east. West does not control these resources atleast as for now.

Isn't that for the now the key part? What happens when Iran falls to the West? What happens when every oil exporter except Russia is directly under the Western thumb? Do you think those who resort to military adventures to control resources will somehow let the "market" dictate who gets access to those resources? Do you think all the puppet regimes installed will somehow decide who gets to buy the resources at what prices and in what currency? You think the Western elite are trying to spread "freedom", "democracy", "capitalism" or "human rights"?

US is more dependent on China for its cheap labor

So you think this "dependence" grew out of some magical "market forces"? Don't you think the West would like to keep it that way, China merely as a source of cheap labour and would do everything in its power to do so?

Pre-emptive attack on the US was studied by Soviets under Andropov in early 1980s. That time was the peak of Soviets in power and military readiness. Generals studied the scenario and concluded that it was 'non winnable' situation.

A preemptive attack needs a justification that is widely appreciated by those who are not adversaries, unless the goal is expansionism. An unjustified, in the view of the allies and bystanders, pre-emptive attack instantly draws condemnation and loss of prestige unless they are too scared of expressing that. The Soviet Union never had one and was not an expansionist.

Also a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the USSR would have definitely resulted in a retaliation, since Westerners themselves would have found it as communist expansionism and would be determined not to surrender.

Also, in 1999, Russian high command very seriously studied the nuclear attack on NATO air bases conducting bombing runs on Serbia. Again the conclusion was not favorable. Russia has maximum only 1/3rd of Soviet power now. So any pre-emptive venture will not have happy endings.

Did they consider striking the US mainland in the first strike? If not, that analysis is irrelevant. However even then, the possibility of a US retaliation was extremely high since there was still residual paranoia about return of Communism to Russia and this would have been considered evidence of that. Not today.

It is nonsense to even discuss nuclear exchange scenarios between any countries.

It certainly wasn't nonsense to those who considered that you cited yourself as did to Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu when he considered openly a nuclear exchange between China and US over Taiwan.

If there are no circumstances under which Russia would use their nukes, they would have gotten rid of them. So evidently there are circumstances under which they are willing to use them, whatever the consequences. Also Russia changing the Soviet policy of no first use means there are circumstances under which they are willing to be the first one to use them. Whether that will result in an exchange is what would have to be considered. If the probability of exchange is not high or the alternative too is not acceptable, Russia can be expected to use them first.

So the question is will Russia accept an alternative where their ability to retaliate itself is neutralised and the West continues on its ways? If they prefer to be destroyed and live in slavery, that is their call, not mine.

Contd...

reply to post by victor7

...Contd

Russians are not third world minded. They are much much more intelligent and deep thinking. There are many other ways to teach west the costs of 'military belligerence' and 'political cowboyship' than attacking them with nukes and WMDs.

Whatever their "intelligent and deep thinking" approaches are involving joining the West in sanctioning countries that the West is hunting, they seem to be working so admirably, right?

Wonder what this "intelligent and deep thinking" response would be if the West strikes Iran either using aircraft carriers or a barrage of missiles from the NATO bases in Europe without any significant losses to themselves? Or actually nukes Iran should they sustain significant losses in the early part of the campaign?

US is really tired from Iraq and still involved Afghanistan.

You seem to have pretty good imagination. US itself doesn't seem to have any problems looking for another country or even two to attack.

ETA: I too don't think the USA will be launching an attack on Iran anytime soon, but not for the reason you think. I doubt Israel will do it either. But the discussion is not about whether the US will launch an attack on Iran, but if it does, which is only a matter of time anyway and all the points will be just as valid 2 years from now as they are today. Syria, however, is right in the crosshairs. That is one of the reasons Russia is looking at Syria more closely than Iran.

Any nation that launches nuclear missiles or drops atomic bombs upon another,will only be doing it to themselves in the long run,if they decide to sow the wind,they will reap the whirlwind...

But on the other hand,the usa has already dropped a-bombs upon another country and what comes around,goes around.Although i understand the reasons why they were dropped,as vengeance for pearl harbor and to hopefully prevent an invasion of mainland japan and save the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of allied lives,which more or less is exactly what the a-bombs did...

Do many people realize that there were british,american and australian prisoners being held inside the cities that were nuked by the usa?...Not good at all...

reply to post by blocula

i understand the reasons why they were dropped,as vengeance for pearl harbor and to hopefully prevent an invasion of mainland japan and save the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of allied lives,which more or less is exactly what the a-bombs did...

When the US is nuked it will be because of all the invasions, murder and plunder engaged in by the US and will save hundreds of millions of human lives yet to be snuffed out by the US and which is exactly what they will achieve.

reply to post by Observor


The US is going to go down without a fight.
The US is going to spend it self into a hole that is deeper than the present known 3rd world standard.

The US is going to set a new standard for what poverty is known for when the creditors come knocking on the doors.

reply to post by spy66

While I wholeheartedly welcome the prospect of the US destroying itself and saving the rest of the world the guilt of having the blood of innocents (however insignificant they may be in numbers and percentage in the US) on their hands, I am afraid that is not going to happen.

Yes, the US economy will collapse. Yes, most of the US will be as safe and desirable to stay as the worst of the third world today. But that however will not result in a reduction in the US power. If anything, it will only increase it. With the military and security apparatus being the only viable employer, besides agriculture and basic services, after the economic collapse more resources will be directed towards the military industry than are today. There will be secure zones and the lawless Wild West, pretty much like Iraq today. It is the population in these secure zones that will be controlling the country. With heavily diminished responsibilities to the local population and without any significant reduction in resources the scenario will be a psychopath's dream. The loyalty of those in the secure zones to the elite will be several times more than today's Americans and for obvious reasons. After all, if they lose their residency permit for the zones, they know exactly what is waiting for them outside those walls.

It is these secure zones that will have to be targeted if the attacks happen after the economic collapse.

ETA:

The US is going to set a new standard for what poverty is known for when the creditors come knocking on the doors.

There is no creditor fool enough to think they can get anything long term for what they loan the US. All the US debt is denominated in US$. Economic collapse, currency collapse in international markets and huge inflation in the US will all happen near simultaneously. All the debt will be worth practically nothing. With the economy collapsing, the demand for Chinese trinkets will practically disappear and the US will turn a net exporter. The debt will be repaid in no time. Ron Paul or not, the Fed will disappear and the US will probably issue a new currency, not backed by gold, but by the treasury or backed by gold after confiscating all the privately held gold

reply to post by Observor
I often wonder about this...From the point of view of the vast majority of nazis,what they were doing,their killings and bombings and invasions of other peoples and countries and their germanic pride,was the right thing to do and it was everyone else that was wrong and it took a coalition of other countries,an allied force,to finally defeat the nazis and stop them from continuing what they were doing...

Hmmmmm? Will there someday be a coalition,an allied force of other countries who join together and stops the usa from doing what its doing,which is more or less killing,bombing and invading who ever it wants and where ever it feels like doing it?

Russia,china,north korea and iran,imo,could actually defeat the usa if they joined together and decided thats what they wanted to do and their troop size and strength alone would severely dwarf the usa"s...

reply to post by blocula


China and Russia are smarter than this. They won't put up a physical fight with the US. It will cost to much.

The east will let the US spend its last drops on Iran. Because a war with Iran is going to cost the US/EU a lot more than Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

And the EU is up the creek as well right now because Greece is threatening to stop paying its debt to the EU. This will in return create some very interesting news in the future. The west is practically bankrupt.

Chine and Russia are just sitting and waiting to bail them out for a very good price. With a new eastern currency of course.

reply to post by blocula

I often wonder about this...From the point of view of the vast majority of nazis,what they were doing,their killings and bombings and invasions of other peoples and countries and their germanic pride,was the right thing to do and it was everyone else that was wrong and it took a coalition of other countries,an allied force,to finally defeat the nazis and stop them from continuing what thy were doing...

So you are capable of putting yourself someone else's shoes. Not bad, not bad at all!

Hmmmmm? Will there someday be a coalition,an allied force of other countries who join together and stops the usa from doing what its doing,which is more or less killing,bombing and invading who ever it wants and where ever it feels like doing it?

No, there won't be coalition and there is no need for one either. The previous coalition was opposed to the Nazis, because they were the competition. The West has no competition in their desires and deeds, Someone fed up will just end them and no one will take their place for a long time to come.

reply to post by Observor


Other than the technology, the West does not control any resources that impede the development of military assets in Russia or Asia. Not even rare earth materials.

Unity of action is the charter of any alliance. Attack on one is attack on all. This works pretty well when applied with grit and brave posture.

I believe from Libyan experience, both Russia and China have learned that UN votes are crucial for protection of other nations which are under attack from NATO. Far fewer sanctions will be approved by Russia and China from here on.

When there is war then all bets are off. Iraq, Serbia, Libya should have gone and attacked the civilian interests of US-NATO all around the world. Even if at the cost of getting nuked. They got nuked anyways. Iraq had 150,000 killed after 2003 attack and majority of country and its economy was destroyed. Killing is killing, either by nukes or bullets or poisoning. How come civilians got bombed in their country and they did not do anything in retaliation?

In Libya they did not send any troops because NTC was doing the dirty work for them. Best of both the worlds. Anti aircraft artellery would not have save Libya from bombing as range is not there to it to hit the planes flying above 15K feet. One JDAM gps type bomb costs $30K and 1 tomahawk missile costs $1M easy. So it would not have been cost beneficial to conduct bombing using missiles. $1M missile to kill 500K worth T-64 Libyan tank does not make any sense.

Until they are threatened with vast number of causalities, they will be happy to play their video games on humans.

Soviet pre-emptive attack plans were mostly out of fear of Ronald Reagan policies. However, USSR was an expansionist entity just like US is being today. Toppling regimes and installing puppet governments was the second main job of folks in Kremlin. Any pre-emptive attack on US/Russia/China/India/UK etc. will result in retaliation. So it better to not even think on those lines.

US can still run Libyan style campaign in Syria where dirty ground work is done by opposition and other GCC Arab armies and US just does the bombing and intelligence support. That way they are not tired and can run a campaign for even couple of billion dollars cost.

Even in the scenario of attack on Iran or Syria, Russia and China will not get involved officially in military sense. They will however provide weapons and other crucial resources to these countries to maintain friendly regimes and thwart the west control of their resources. Actually, Russia atleast is pretty good at such back stage string pulling.

reply to post by spy66

The east will let the US spend its last drops on Iran. Because a war with Iran is going to cost the US/EU a lot more than Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

And the EU is up the creek as well right now because Greece is threatening to stop paying its debt to the EU. This will in return create some very interesting news in the future. The west is practically bankrupt.

Chine and Russia are just sitting and waiting to bail them out for a very good price. With a new eastern currency of course.

You are clever enough to understand all that, but those running the West are somehow not?

Why not give them some credit and consider the possibility that they are at least as clever as you are and they too can predict what you can? And if they are still going ahead with their plans that may be you missed something, rather than them being stupid?

Not too self-gratifying. Is it?

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by spy66

 

The east will let the US spend its last drops on Iran. Because a war with Iran is going to cost the US/EU a lot more than Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

And the EU is up the creek as well right now because Greece is threatening to stop paying its debt to the EU. This will in return create some very interesting news in the future. The west is practically bankrupt.

Chine and Russia are just sitting and waiting to bail them out for a very good price. With a new eastern currency of course.

You are clever enough to understand all that, but those running the West are somehow not?

Why not give them some credit and consider the possibility that they are at least as clever as you are and they too can predict what you can? And if they are still going ahead with their plans that may be you missed something, rather than them being stupid?

Not too self-gratifying. Is it?

The elite within the US knows this. Its just that the US is being played this time around. They have no other alternative but to play the game of capitalism as it is being played.

Of course its also a media and power game at home base as well, where you have to say and promise one thing to get elected to power, and go a head and do another once you have the power.

The US have written obligations and agreements they cant just stop at own will. Capitalistic rules and agreements. You can probably face in the Federal reserve as the main game player. The US owns that bank a ton of promises.

reply to post by Observor


There is definitely a need of a strong coalition which stops the US NATO's belligerence on small countries and increasing threatening posture towards now Russia and later China.

The western economies are bankrupt, so making a coalition now will do two things a) stop their nonsense of attacking small countries b) bankrupt them further as a result of more defense budgets and result in implosion of their economies and currencies.

1 Megaton H-Bomb costs $300K for a power like Russia or US, that already have reactors on go. 1 Topol-M costs $2.5M but can host 10 warheads that can strike 10 different targets. Hence, there is an investment of $5.5M into 1 multiwarhead Topol-M. 1000 such Topol-Ms would cost $5.5B but would be suffice to target 10,000 co-ordinates.

What would be the response of the psychopaths to this $5B posture: They will spend $500B in trying to develop technology to cancel this out or similar amount to protect or harden their military or civilian facillities from the attack. This was just one example, there are thousands of such technical responses that can be taken without breaking the bank due to very cheap cost of labor and human capital in non western nations. No more pentagon budget cuts and their economy goes into the landfill.

Coalition is surely needed even if it is informal not like a cold war but the psychopaths need to know that their jaws will be smashed in a ring fight.

reply to post by victor7

Other than the technology, the West does not control any resources that impede the development of military assets in Russia or Asia. Not even rare earth materials.

You are assuming the West's control will remain restricted to what it is today. Every country that lacks the ability to strike back at the Western homelands will come under Western umbrella one way or another. The only resources that will not be under Western control are those within these handful of countries in the alliance that you are proposing. There won't be any neutral countries for them to trade with. It is a true global domination that the West seeks, intends to get and will most likely achieve if not stopped soon.

I believe from Libyan experience, both Russia and China have learned that UN votes are crucial for protection of other nations which are under attack from NATO. Far fewer sanctions will be approved by Russia and China from here on.

I will believe it when I see it. More importantly it is their reaction if the West decides to act militarily without their consent (i.e, without UN authorisation) that will expose if they gave a tacit approval for the action or not.

When there is war then all bets are off. Iraq, Serbia, Libya should have gone and attacked the civilian interests of US-NATO all around the world.

How exactly would they have achieved it? Through random terrorist attacks, since they have no capability to attack NATO targets of value anywhere since they are well protected? Do you think that will increase or decrease the public support within the West for such actions in future?

Anyway all the Western states are becoming police states and such tactics even if they could have had some success in the past are increasingly unreliable.

Even if at the cost of getting nuked.

Funny how that option is suggested for those who cannot nuke the West, but unthinkable for those who can. Yeah, right. Those puny nations should be risking annihilation to score a few Western civilian casualties, just to prove to others posthumously that they valued living on their own terms?

In Libya they did not send any troops because NTC was doing the dirty work for them. Best of both the worlds. Anti aircraft artellery would not have save Libya from bombing as range is not there to it to hit the planes flying above 15K feet. One JDAM gps type bomb costs $30K and 1 tomahawk missile costs $1M easy. So it would not have been cost beneficial to conduct bombing using missiles. $1M missile to kill 500K worth T-64 Libyan tank does not make any sense.

Exactly what I said. The West would pick the most cost-effective tactics for the scenario. As for the NTC, yes, there will be always be traitors who will assist the West in their job. No matter what the country, there will be those who are driven by survival rather than values and when they see the West is going to win, they will take that side. If there are not enough traitors to do the work for the West and direct occupation is not an option because of the cost involved, they will simply bomb and destroy and come back later to finish the job when more are willing to join their side.

Until they are threatened with vast number of causalities, they will be happy to play their video games on humans.

Glad we agree on that finally! Now that we agree on what will keep them in check, we can discuss how that can be achieved

Any pre-emptive attack on US/Russia/China/India/UK etc. will result in retaliation.

Not necessarily. Don't be so sure of what your adversary will do. Your adversary wants to make everyone his slave. But he is also interested in staying alive. You have no designs for your adversary and he too understands that. If you can prove to him that you are willing to finish him off, should he continue with his attempts to enslave the next guy, he will be disciplined because he values staying alive more than enslaving someone else and he knows he can't kill you without himself dying.

If Russia or China launches an attack today citing some past aggression by the US it can be treated only as an aggression and response becomes necessary. However, if either of these launch an attack immediately in response to a Western attack on another nation, it would be technically pre-emptive, but practically a respone to aggression, especially if warned of it before. In that scenario there will be no retaliation, since any retaliation by West will result in their own annihilation. They will know that they have crossed a line that they shouldn't have.

reply to post by Observor


Did anyone got nuked as a result of 911.........No! Because it was the work of the non-state operators.


Iran has lots of non state operators and if it is attacked we will see lots of nonsense actions. Basically, a country under a dictator like Saddam or Gaddahfi with mostly 'yes men' taking decisions is crippled when fighting any nations. Dictators tend to override the professional opinions of military men and cause misery on their own.

For small nations fielding a 1980s Brezhnev era armies, the better tools are guerrilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism. Brezhnev era equipment can be blown up in two weeks as we have seen many times.

reply to post by Observor


"How exactly would they have achieved it? Through random terrorist attacks, since they have no capability to attack NATO targets of value anywhere since they are well protected?"

Ask the western policy makers what it would have meant to lose even several hundred civilians as a result of the terrorist actions in response to attacks by the "power drunk" psychopaths. When your own civilians are getting bombed then have no hesitation extending the courtesy to the civilians of the attackers.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by blocula

 

China and Russia are smarter than this. They won't put up a physical fight with the US. It will cost to much.

The east will let the US spend its last drops on Iran. Because a war with Iran is going to cost the US/EU a lot more than Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

And the EU is up the creek as well right now because Greece is threatening to stop paying its debt to the EU. This will in return create some very interesting news in the future. The west is practically bankrupt.

Chine and Russia are just sitting and waiting to bail them out for a very good price. With a new eastern currency of course.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

It seems to me that Russians have some "UNCONTROLLABLE" Erotic desire to polish the shoes of the NATO and hand wash NATO's laundry. They are working very hard and focused towards the fulfillment of this desire.

In the mean time, Chinese are very happy being the 'slave labors' to the west while riding the bubbles in their own economy.

When self pride is lost then the soul is lost.............at that point country, religion, culture, family all does not matter a squat.