Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

Originally posted by ludaChris
Defeating an insurgency can be done(while a very delicate and time consuming process). Communist insurgents were defeated in Greece,

They were communist? Since when?

the Brits and Aussies defeated insurgents in Maylaysia in that infamous jungle fighting they both became famous for. It can be done!!!

Once again i am surprised that being able to 'defeat' ( i would say drive to the negotiating table) a freedom movement that fought against the Japanese occupation before can be called a victory. Did this movement not manage to gain independence within the commonwealth? You may call it a victory but i call it people who are willing to fight while they can and willing to adapt when they are presented with new options and relative independence; few people actually WANT to die for their cause contrary to what the media tries to sell us.

You also seem to forget that the conflicts you cite were very political. Much care had to be taken in waging each of the campaigns, it wasnt so simple as to just go in and flatten everything in sight. Read this from the US Army War College, makes for a good read.

ALL CONFLICT is political as people never rally behind flags when they options and these days there are few options as bad as getting shot at by long range artillery or heavy strategic bombers. People simple do not choose to make war unless they have been sufficiently conditioned to accept that certain things are worth killing for and that there is a enemy that threatens their country. Korea and Vietnam and even the second world war was all about flattening the enemies infrastructure and i am surprised that you consider that care was taken in how these wars were fought. Do you really believe that the US could not have won in Korea or in Vietnam had it chosen to do what was required? I can assure you that they did everything in their power to avoid winning and cause as much destruction of infrastructure and civilization as they could while keeping things as destabilized as they could.

Stellar

Originally posted by kvnkreed
For the most part America has not ever directly started a declared MAJOR war..of course, if you get attacked or the security of your country or allies is at hand...you gonna fight,even if you attack first...

America did not start WW I or WW II. However it did start the Cold War. First with the invention and demonstration of the Atomic Bomb, and second with Truman openly announcing America's goal to prevent the spread of communism anywhere (even if it is backed by popular movement). The Soviet Union was forced to respond with a creation of their own bomb. Most of the things the USSR did at that time (late 40's- early 50's) was reactionary. The US deemed Soviet Russia a threat from the moment it was conceived, and eventually elevated this perceived threat to such a level that it started the Cold War.

And since the end of WWII, the US started a multitude of wars. It choose to interfere in conflicts around the world, without any justified reason for doing so.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
Also I strongly believe that......without most actions from the USA in the past to present-day... 60 plus years of history would not be recorded as the way that it is now..for the most part, the world would be a much dangerous place today if not for the USA.

You are talking about post-WWII era here. Everything the US tried to do, was primarily above all, to benefit itself. It checked the spread of communism, not because it cared about the Koreans or the Vietnamese or the Cubans. The US participated in these conflicts, to increase its influence and increase the potential (devastating potential in some instances) of globalisation. Communism arose in these and many other countries as a popular movement. in many instances Soviet Union had nothing to do with it, because the movements were originally self-contained.

And after the Cold War- especially- the US took it upon itself to police the world as it sees fit- primarily to benefit itself once again. How does the Iraqi war benefit the Iraqis? How was the invasion of Yugoslavia by NATO justified- it was an illegal operation. US does everything possible, to further its own influence. Where is the needed intereference in Sudan? Where are billions of dollars that could be used to help the situation throughout Africa? They are being instead spent on war of questionable justification in the Middle East. Wars that benefit America, but severaly destabilize the entire region.

You don't know what the world would be today if not for America. For all we know it would be a better place. Unlike the popular belief among patriotic Americans, the US does not get rid of all that is evil and propagate everything that is good. US gets rid of everything it doesn't like, and propagates everything to further itself as a superpower.

Honestly- how did the war in Vietman and Iraq make the world a better place? How did the Cold War make the world a better place?

Originally posted by kvnkreed
P.S. Imagine what the world would be like today if Japan or Germany had not attacked the US at all in WW1 & WW2

It is a known fact (even appears in US textbooks), that the post WWI victory division of Europe by the US and its allies, was very unfair and largely contributed to WWII. US was not attacked in WWI directly, but only when it supplied Britain with war equipment and ammunition.

US involvement in WWII was very limited outside the Pacific. Russia was very much capable of stopping and reversing the Nazi assault. By the time the US landed in Normany on D-Day, Russia was already pushing back the Germans with full and unstoppable force. US, Britain, Canada, and the allies only took back France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the weakly defended Italy- and faced about 25% of total German forces. Russia alone, took back all of its captured territory, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, all of Eastern Europe (approximately 8 times as much territory as US did)- and faced 75% of the entire German army. All of the key and crucial European battles happened on the Eastern front (except for the Battle for Britain)- Battle near Moscow, battle of Stalingrad, battle for Sevastopol, battle of Kaliningrad, battle of Kursk, the crossing of the Dneper, the battle for Berlin.

US did defeat Japan, but the war on the eastern European front was conclusively the most decisive factor in WWII.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
what would had happen if the Cuban missle crisis gotten out of hand, what would have happen if America did nothing & let the soviet union win the cold war

Cuban missile crisis got out of hand because US intervened. It was between Soviet Union and Cuba- what Cuba wanted to do with its land. They were allies, and allies have the right to help each other. Russia would have placed the missiles in Cuba, and nothing would have happened. US had missiles in Turkey, along Southern Russian border. So why couldn't Russia have missiles in Cuba.

US did nothing to win the Cold War- the victory fell on its lap, and caught Reagan with surprise of all people. Russia decided to end the Cold War when Gorbachev introduced perestroika and glastnost. US had nothing to do with it. So the correct question for you to ask would be- What if Russia hadn't decided to quit on the idea of communism? We would still be in a Cold War, and fight proxy wars with each other- much like we are still doing today.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
..etc..imagine what will happen if Iran & N. korea get nukes,etc....frankly I'm glad that for the MOST part.. America has stood its ground when it really needed to & so should everybody else. ... I'm not saying the US is perfect...but, we have been a key player to stability in the word for a long time now..... in closing...what if america had lost the Revolutionary war.......................I don't think none of the above would be valid....

America stood its ground? It allowed NK to get nukes already, and Iran is free to do what they wish. I think America is losing its ground. Better think of something fast.

Key player in world stability? By same standards that colonial Europe was key to world's stability? US contributed nothing to world stability, that did not have utmost benefit for it first.

Very insightful post Maloy. I am surprised to have run into someone else who knows this and is willing to tell others.....

Originally posted by rogue1
It wouldn't really matter if the USSr won or not ( not that there are any winners ) the rest of the world would be disguted at both powers. So what could the USSR hope to gain other than a destroyed country ?

What would the rest of the world have been able to do? The USSR did not hope to destroy the USA as much as prepare to survive , and possibly win, whatever war came it's way. As you say winning such a war would hardly have been something worth celebrating but what can you do when the other side invests in offensive arms only while not bothering with any passive and civil defensive measures?

They were always going to go nuclear were they

( you must hvae access to top secret archives to be so confident LMAO ).

Why do i need to have access to top secret documents? Is it not obvious but their use of vacuum technology and extraordinary civil defense measures ( to name a just two) that they thought any war would escalate to full nuclear exchanges?

So if the USSR was always going to go nuclear why waist the money keeping a vast standing army which was ment to beat NATO coventionally. You logic is completely warped.

Well tactical nuclear warheads cause disruption and deaths but it does not leave a vacuum that you can simple walk or drive trough unarmored and armed. One never bargains on one of your strategic arms doing all the work and thus they prepared for as many eventualities as they could by having vast and effective conventional forces as well. Remember that NATO also had large conventional forces and that if the west chose to invade the USSR it may not have wanted to nuke it's own towns and cities for lack of conventional forces to blunt the attacks.

Stellar

[edit on 22-10-2006 by StellarX]

With all thats been said about the Cold War and the errors in Vietnam, it is still very surprising by the narrowed view of 20th century history that many Americans and some Europeans still possess today.

During the colonial times, and a long time after the fact, many Europeans believed that they were benefiting and "civilizing" the world. However this misguided opinion, and failure of Europe to cease colonialization while it still wasn't too late, proved to be distatorous to world stability in the late 19th and 20th centuries. If Colonial Era was to teach us one thing- it is to always doubt what your government is doing in your name around the world, and to have some comprehension of how your actions are influencing people in other places around the world.

However judging by the US foreign strategy after WWII- this lesson was not learned. And still today many people see what the US was doing in that period as good and benevolent. In reality the Cold War, was almost as destructive to "third World" countries influenced by it, as the colonies had been before. People caught up in proxy wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, and many other countries, suffered as a direct result of US and USSR's actions. And US was no better than USSR in any way. But the USSR and its legacy is now gone, and its ideals long ago denounced by Russia and other member states. Russia has long abandoned its Cold War era quests.

US on the other hand, continues to carry the big stick, despite having no other super power to counter-balance it. The US continues its imperialistic quests with the spread of globalization and military influence in mind. It did not denounce its actions during the Cold War. It did not change its foreign policy. It did virtually nothing to use its sole status as a superpower to further the stability of the world. Counter to that- it abused its position in an attempt to bite off as much as it can chew before another superpower comes into being (China I reckon).


And the point it- many Americans see nothing wrong with what they did in the Cold War and are still doing today. They are still of the belief that they are spreading democracy and freedom. And still oblivious to the fact that the devastating effects of America's foreign policy today- will come to haunt them tomorrow. It already came to haunt them during 9/11, but instead of taking this time for reflection, they used it to increase its aggressive tactics.

So the thing to start doing first is- to understand one's faults during the past era- the Cold War - in order to start changing policies today. Many still believe that Vietman war was bad because many soldiers died, and the tactics were bad- and see nothing wrong with America's involvement in that war from the start. The same can be said for involvement in Iraq, Korea, Cuba, and other places. US and USSR both ignited the world during the Cold War, and exploited it. But one still refuses to acknowledge this, while the other has disappeared.

Originally posted by rogue1
This has nothimg to do with the US, I was showing how the Russians had alot of trouble fighting a small skirmish inside their own country

Yes THEIR OWN COUNTRY which imo makes all the difference in the world. They had a great deal of trouble for quite a number of reasons if not simply the apparent skill of their enemies...

against a small insurgency,
BTW, you should really do some more reading about both Chechan Wars because your ignorance on the subject has been laid bare.

Uh i can agree that my prior reading ( never all that specific ) on this topic did not lead me in the right direction and that i made a few mistakes which i will admit to. The scale of Russian and Chechen casualties were just far far larger than i thought before...

The Russians did bomb the crap out of Chehcnya including levelling the capital city of Grozny killing thousands of civilians.

I would not say they levelled Grozny but they clearly bombed the crap out of any areas ( and sometimes it was apparently not very specific at all) they suspected resistance in.

After having their ass kicked they decided to resort to their WW2 tactics of mass bombardment - Kill 'em 'all.

Well they did not kill them all but after what i have now seen they were apparently very indiscriminate about their bombing later on and that it did lead to tens of thousands ( or far more as some sources state) of civilian casualties. I am trying to figure out what would best explain the relatively small numbers of troops committed ,at any one time, and and the sometimes very random destruction as it's making about as much sense as American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is without question true is that Russia had better excuses for trying to pacify ( i don't agree with the badly executed plan/method thought) the area as it is still part of Russian and one can only wonder what the American government would have done had Texas decided to rejoin Mexico. We know that the American air force have at least once firebombed a part of a American city ( well it was black area so no one really took notice) and one can only wonder what would happen if a state tried to cede and invaded another with a armed force! This is what the Chechen terrorist did at the behest of international bankers and power brokers and it's sad that so many are dying for being in the wrong part of Russia.

Stellar

Man...now I got to take you to the School of (lets be reasonable & think things through) Now,Maloy I got to make a long arse post to respond to your views which have some hints of bias in them.....Okay so here goes..ya know what just forget it..you & stellar x are to dayum bias..yall steady trying to give a history lesson to justify what Russia,N. korea etc...are not that bad but US is so dayum evil..get off that shyat...byathces..just be glad that the US was present during the past & now..because if you think that without the US, Europe,etc. would have the same boundary lines today if the US was not present & if you think the world would have been a better place, yall are fuking idiots, the dSviets,etc. would have had a field day overunnig Europe. Futuremore the USSR Gov. was Evil back in the day..made the U.S. as a country seem like the Ice Cream man in comparison...not even 20% of russians at best,had the freedom that black,white etc.. that any american citizen had & still have.. I was going to really respond to EVERYTHING you said in a very professonial way,but FUK it...in yalls eyes the US is evil & can do no right..yall bring up these lame arse excuses from the DAYUM COLONIAL PERID to present-day to try plus justify overall U.S. Policy..some stuff yall say is true,but for the most part yall are crazy. I never ever said the US was perfect on everything ever..we have fuked up too.....BUT yall....are really missing the point, & to say the US did not really win WW2 is stupid as heyal!!! I focus on the OVERALL EFFECT FACTOR of THE world From back in the past to the way the world is shaped Today!!! No matter what yall say without the US in Europe during WW 1 or 2 & strongly surrporting NATO during the cold war...it would have been a WW 3.....& Europe would NOT be a BETTER place afterwards...FACT. MAN, We are off Topic anyway of what the original poster started .I'm out dayum this stupid asre topic!!!!

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

Originally posted by kvnkreed
Man...now I got to take you to the School of (lets be reasonable & think things through) Now,Maloy I got to make a long arse post to respond to your views which have some hints of bias in them.....Okay so here goes..ya know what just forget it..you & stellar x are to dayum bias..yall steady trying to give a history lesson to justify what Russia,N. korea etc...are not that bad but US is so dayum evil..get off that shyat...byathces..just be glad that the US was present during the past & now..

You don't have to make a long post- unless you want to in any way justify your groundless conclusions coming seemingly out of nowhere. But if you have nothing to go by and to justify the said points- it is understandable.

StellarX makes long and detailed posts, because he has the knowledge and the will to actually do research and understand the key issues involved. But if you want to make a short post stating nothing more than opinion- about how the Great US is responsible for safekeeping the troublesome world- go right ahead. But then don't post an empty accusation at somebody who actually took time to analyse your inconclusive deductions.

What is so bad with admitting that the US is "evil"? All empires were "evil". USSR was evil. Nazi Germany was "evil". Russia is no angel. But saying that the US is responsible for keeping the world safe is completely erroneous, especially given little proof to back up your inclonclusive conclusions.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
because if you think that without the US, Europe would have the same boundary lines today if the US was not present & if you think the world would have been a better place, yall are fuking idiots

Ok. We are f'ing idiots because we don't think like you. Hurray for freedom of self expression. You show little class, and personal accusations based on my or someone's analytical conclusions are rather silly and humorous. If you want to argue about what I said I'll be glad to partake in a discussion. But calling me an idiot does not make me look like idiot any more than it makes you look like such.

I do not think the world today is even remotely a good place. Nor do I think that US made it any better than it was before. Many boundaries around the world today, including Europe, are incomplete and arguementative. There is still a lot of unsolved issues and border disputes (just look in Yugoslavia, Russia/Yukraine, Georgia/Abkhazia, Armenia/Turkey/Azerbaijan, Spain/France/Basque, North Ireland, and many more.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
futuremore the USSR Gov. was Evil back in the day..made the U.S. as a country seem like the Ice Cream man in comparison...not even 20% of russians at best,had the freedom that black,white etc.. that any american citizen had & still have.

Did you live in Soviet Russia? Have you ever been to Russia presently? Did you live in segregation era US in southern states like Alabama in the 1960's? Did you take a stroll through Camdem, NJ, or Harlem and observe the way of life there? Experience is the key to forming an educated opinion. If experience is not present, then research and unbiased analysis substitute.

Also- please define what you mean by Evil. Is Uncle Sam trying to shove a burger down your throat evil (not literal by metaphoric comparison)? Is somebody coming to take your countries oil resources without your express approval evil? Is exploiting the world evil? Evil has but many definitions, and if you apply it in any form to USSR, I can apply it in as many forms to the US. But you don't want to do that do you now?

Originally posted by kvnkreed
I was going to really respond to EVERYTHING you said in a very professonial way,but FUK it

The easiest way out of an arguement is to degrade the opposing party and pretend that it is not worth your time. But then the easiest way out of an arguement never led one to winning an arguement.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
...in yalls eyes the US is evil & can do no right..yall bring up these lame excuses from the DAYUM COLONIAL PERID to try to justify overall U.S. Policy..some stuff yall say is true,but for the most part yall are crazy.

US does many things right. The feats it has accomplished in economical and consumerist fields are unsurpassed around the world. US has done great things, and its people have contributed greatly to trying to make the world a better place. But the US government is sadly a counter-active force to these beneficial results.

We are all crazy because we try to form an analytical arguement. What then would you classify yourself as by these standards?

Originally posted by kvnkreed
I never ever said the US was perfect on everything ever..we have fuked up too.....BUT yall....are really missing the point, & to say the US did not really win WW2 is stupid as heyal!!! man I'm out dayum this stupid asre topic!!!!

So long my friend. Next time you might be better off actually interpreting the replies addressed to your post- for I believe that is the express point of these forums- to engage in a thought provoking discussion.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
I focus on the OVERALL EFFECT FACTOR of THE world From back in the past to the way the world is shaped Today!!!

On and so do I my friend. But you didn't read that post did you. Or didn't take adequate time to comprehend it.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
No matter what yall say without the US in Europe during WW 1 or 2 & strongly surrporting NATO during the cold war...it would have been a WW 3.....& Europe would NOT be a BETTER place afterwards...FACT. MAN, We are off Topic anyway of what the original poster started .I'm out dayum this stupid asre topic!!!!

Cold War started as the result of the US actions as I said in the original post.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by kvnkreed
Man...now I got to take you to the School of (lets be reasonable & think things through) Now,Maloy I got to make a long arse post to respond to your views which have some hints of bias in them.....Okay so here goes..ya know what just forget it..you & stellar x are to dayum bias..yall steady trying to give a history lesson to justify what Russia,N. korea etc...are not that bad but US is so dayum evil..get off that shyat...byathces..just be glad that the US was present during the past & now..

You don't have to make a long post- unless you want to in any way justify your groundless conclusions coming seemingly out of nowhere. But if you have nothing to go by and to justify the said points- it is understandable.

StellarX makes long and detailed posts, because he has the knowledge and the will to actually do research and understand the key issues involved. But if you want to make a short post stating nothing more than opinion- about how the Great US is responsible for safekeeping the troublesome world- go right ahead. But then don't post an empty accusation at somebody who actually took time to analyse your inconclusive deductions.

What is so bad with admitting that the US is "evil"? All empires were "evil". USSR was evil. Nazi Germany was "evil". Russia is no angel. But saying that the US is responsible for keeping the world safe is completely erroneous, especially given little proof to back up your inclonclusive conclusions.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
because if you think that without the US, Europe would have the same boundary lines today if the US was not present & if you think the world would have been a better place, yall are fuking idiots

Ok. We are f'ing idiots because we don't think like you. Hurray for freedom of self expression. You show little class, and personal accusations based on my or someone's analytical conclusions are rather silly and humorous. If you want to argue about what I said I'll be glad to partake in a discussion. But calling me an idiot does not make me look like idiot any more than it makes you look like such.

I do not think the world today is even remotely a good place. Nor do I think that US made it any better than it was before. Many boundaries around the world today, including Europe, are incomplete and arguementative. There is still a lot of unsolved issues and border disputes (just look in Yugoslavia, Russia/Yukraine, Georgia/Abkhazia, Armenia/Turkey/Azerbaijan, Spain/France/Basque, North Ireland, and many more.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
futuremore the USSR Gov. was Evil back in the day..made the U.S. as a country seem like the Ice Cream man in comparison...not even 20% of russians at best,had the freedom that black,white etc.. that any american citizen had & still have.

Did you live in Soviet Russia? Have you ever been to Russia presently? Did you live in segregation era US in southern states like Alabama in the 1960's? Did you take a stroll through Camdem, NJ, or Harlem and observe the way of life there? Experience is the key to forming an educated opinion. If experience is not present, then research and unbiased analysis substitute.

Also- please define what you mean by Evil. Is Uncle Sam trying to shove a burger down your throat evil (not literal by metaphoric comparison)? Is somebody coming to take your countries oil resources without your express approval evil? Is exploiting the world evil? Evil has but many definitions, and if you apply it in any form to USSR, I can apply it in as many forms to the US. But you don't want to do that do you now?

Originally posted by kvnkreed
I was going to really respond to EVERYTHING you said in a very professonial way,but FUK it

The easiest way out of an arguement is to degrade the opposing party and pretend that it is not worth your time. But then the easiest way out of an arguement never led one to winning an arguement.

Originally posted by kvnkreed
...in yalls eyes the US is evil & can do no right..yall bring up these lame excuses from the DAYUM COLONIAL PERID to try to justify overall U.S. Policy..some stuff yall say is true,but for the most part yall are crazy.

US does many things right. The feats it has accomplished in economical and consumerist fields are unsurpassed around the world. US has done great things, and its people have contributed greatly to trying to make the world a better place. But the US government is sadly a counter-active force to these beneficial results.

We are all crazy because we try to form an analytical arguement. What then would you classify yourself as by these standards?

Originally posted by kvnkreed
I never ever said the US was perfect on everything ever..we have fuked up too.....BUT yall....are really missing the point, & to say the US did not really win WW2 is stupid as heyal!!! man I'm out dayum this stupid asre topic!!!!

So long my friend. Next time you might be better off actually interpreting the replies addressed to your post- for I believe that is the express point of these forums- to engage in a thought provoking discussion.

Whatever guy...I but I bet the US has progressed a lot better than Russia hasf rom the 60's til this point in time as far as the way citizens are treated today. Our US goverment of TODAY may not be perfect but,it is a hell of lot better than alot of other alternatives..russia china,iran etc ..especially on humanrights freepress,etc.issues I know about the past but look at the world today comparer your shyat today. The only thing I wish the US would have was left Iraq alone the second time around,because we did go at it the wrong way. Yall said something earlier that the US let N.Korea get Nukes..B.S. the UN sits on its arse & don't won't to do nothing when they can but when things get bad then they want to fight. If the US had went in own its own against N. Korea,etc..we would be considered EVIL I guess huh??? STFU dawg Man seriously lets get back to the topic about russian military power today,etc.....this shyat we talking about can die..I'm done on this mess. later & god bless ya!!!

Originally posted by rogue1
LOl any credibility you may have had has disappeared with tyhis paragraph.

Please stop pretending that you consider anything you do not believe 'credible' as that has not been my experience with you in the last year. You certainly do not like what i have to say and there is no reason to pretend otherwise for dramatic effect.

So the Russians somehow sank a submerged submarine using some type of weather control device.

Well i can state what i believe and admit that i am probably going to have a hard time proving it as per my usual well supported way.....

Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

www.defenselink.mil...

FBIS Transcribed Text] MOSCOW. Aug 8 (Interfax) - The Russian State
Duma has expressed concern about the United States' program to develop a
qualitatively new type of weapon.
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.

FAS-Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon.

So if it's geophysical it can clearly work under water and under ground as well as above it. Krushchev said in the very early 60's that the USSR had fantastic new weapons in mind and in testing and Bush revealed ( as per his habit) more than he should have.

"We have a new weapon, just within the portfolio of our scientists, so to speak, which is so powerful that, if unrestrainedly used, it could wipe out all life on earth. It is a fantastic weapon." Khrushchev, to the Presidium, Jan. 1960

"I'm not looking forward to this trip," Bush said as he toured Alabama and Mississippi and headed for Louisiana. "It's as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by the worst kind of weapon you can imagine," he said.

www.weatherwars.info...

Was the Cuban missile crisis just the USSR overplaying it's hand before it's new " fantastic weapons" were ready for deployment, as Bearden suggest, and why did the Thresher go down with so many civilians on board so close to the end of Cuban Missile Crisis? Did they really expect that there was any danger? Why so close to May day?

If i knew more about the undersea 'telephones' they used for communication i might very well be able to dismiss the 'garbled' communication ( towards the end) as nothinb but as of now that's just another thing i must look into.

Another question i have is why the Captain never said anything about a leak or a reactor shut down in his communication and in fact indicated that it was a minor problem?

On April 9, 1963, after the completion of this work, Thresher, now commanded by LCDR John Wesley Harvey, began post-overhaul trials. Accompanied by the submarine rescue ship USS Skylark (ASR-20), she sailed to an area some 350 km (220 miles) east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and on the morning of April 10 started deep-diving tests. As these proceeded, garbled communications were received over the underwater telephone by Skylark, indicating that after initial problems Thresher had tilted and the crew were attempting to regain control. A few words were understandable, including the famous final phrase "... minor difficulties, have positive up-angle, attempting to blow." [1] [2] [3] When the garbled communications --- which were followed by the ominous sound of pressurized air escaping --- eventually ceased, surface observers gradually realized that the Thresher had sunk. All 129 officers, crewmen and military and civilian technicians aboard her were lost.

en.wikipedia.org...(SSN-593)

Now honestly i am not sure if a reactor shutdown or a leak in the the reactor compartment or electric failure can be considered 'minor' and while it's always good for starship captains to communicate in that way in the movies I'm not sure this is what a submarine captain would have said when reporting on a dire situation which he considered outside of his control.

Thats gotta be some of the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. The Thresher wsa sunk when the HTP in one of the torpedo engins exploeded causing catastrophic flooding.

According to official sources the reason for the sinking is still uncertain ( since there is no way to sure there was in fact a leak ; they really have no clue) but it's suspected that it was bad construction...

After the sub sank, the Navy investigated and determined that the most probable cause of the accident was a leak in its engine room because of corrosions in its pipes. This, in turn, could have caused electrical problems on the sub.

After the accident, the Navy established additional safety procedures, including the SUBSAFE program, which requires each submarine to pass a series of safety tests.

The Navy's investigation concluded that while the Thresher was operating at test depth, a leak had developed at a silver-brazed joint in an engine room seawater system, and water from the leak may have short-circuited electrical equipment, causing a reactor shutdown and leaving the submarine without primary and secondary propulsion systems. The submarine was unable to blow its main ballast tanks, and because of the boat's weight and depth, the power available from the emergency propulsion motor was insufficient to propel the submarine to the surface

Personnel Other Than Ship's Company

Abrams, Fred P., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Allen, Philip H., LCDR, USN, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Beal, Daniel W., Jr., Civilian Employee, Combat Systems Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Biederman, Robert D., LT, USN, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Billings, John H., LCDR, USN, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Charron, Robert E., Civilian Employee, Design Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Corcoran, Kenneth R., Contractor's Representative, Sperry Corp.
Critchley, Kenneth J., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Currier, Paul C., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Des Jardins, Richard R., Civilian Employee, Combat Systems Division, Portsmouth Naval
Dineen, George J., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Fisher, Richard K., Civilian Employee, Design Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Guerette, Paul A., Civilian Employee, Design Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Jaquay, Maurice F., Contractor's Representative, Raytheon Corp.
Keuster, Donald W., Naval Ordnance Laboratory
Krag, Robert L., LCDR, USN, Staff, Deputy Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Moreau, Henry C., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Palmer, Franklin J., Civilian Employee, Production Department, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Prescott, Robert D., Civilian Employee, Design Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Shipyard.
Stadtmuller, Donald T., Contractor's Representative, Sperry Corp.
Whitten, Laurence E., Civilian Employee, Combat Systems Division, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net...

That's ALOT of civilians for a test that might be at all dangerous and why the mention of 'electrical problems' as if there was some way to determine that? Does it take electrical problems to sink a nuclear submarine?

I could go on endlessly easily proving that weather engineering and geophysical warfare is very much a reality but i don't think can be prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Thresher was sunk by such means. As is obvious i have more questions than answers and I will from now on make sure i say clearly that it's my opinion.....

Stellar

Originally posted by kvnkreed
Man...now I got to take you to the School of (lets be reasonable & think things through) Now,Maloy I got to make a long arse post to respond to your views which have some hints of bias in them.....Okay so here goes..ya know what just forget it..you & stellar x are to dayum bias..yall steady trying to give a history lesson to justify what Russia,N. korea etc...are not that bad but US is so dayum evil..get off that shyat...byathces..just be glad that the US was present during the past & now..because if you think that without the US, Europe,etc. would have the same boundary lines today if the US was not present & if you think the world would have been a better place, yall are fuking idiots, the dSviets,etc. would have had a field day overunnig Europe. Futuremore the USSR Gov. was Evil back in the day..made the U.S. as a country seem like the Ice Cream man in comparison...not even 20% of russians at best,had the freedom that black,white etc.. that any american citizen had & still have.. I was going to really respond to EVERYTHING you said in a very professonial way,but FUK it...in yalls eyes the US is evil & can do no right..yall bring up these lame arse excuses from the DAYUM COLONIAL PERID to present-day to try plus justify overall U.S. Policy..some stuff yall say is true,but for the most part yall are crazy. I never ever said the US was perfect on everything ever..we have fuked up too.....BUT yall....are really missing the point, & to say the US did not really win WW2 is stupid as heyal!!! I focus on the OVERALL EFFECT FACTOR of THE world From back in the past to the way the world is shaped Today!!! No matter what yall say without the US in Europe during WW 1 or 2 & strongly surrporting NATO during the cold war...it would have been a WW 3.....& Europe would NOT be a BETTER place afterwards...FACT. MAN, We are off Topic anyway of what the original poster started .I'm out dayum this stupid asre topic!!!!

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

Be carefull what you say cauz the moderator is gonna GETCHA!

Is it just me or has this thread got off track into a US good versus Russia + all other enemies of US Bad?

You are so right wildcat, this topic has gotten way of course..but ya know I just got tired of other people on this board trying to turn this into a America VS. Russia,etc. thread,so thats why I responded with what I thought,which is my view...that don't make it right,but it is what I think.... It was dumb for me to even respond in the first place.... please lets get back ON the TOPIC gentelman,ok. God bless yall & I visit back later on.

For the most part America has not ever directly started a declared MAJOR war..of course, if you get attacked or the security of your country or allies is at hand...you gonna fight,even if you attack first...

American-Mexican war for starters. Go from there, up until current Iraq. Vietnam was not a major war? Since when?

60 plus years of history would not be recorded as the way that it is now..for the most part, the world would be a much dangerous place today if not for the USA

This comes up again and again, simply because our educational system simply does not teach History.

Since WWII America has been CONTINUOUSLY at war, which directly and indirectly cause millions upon millions of civilian deaths.

The ONLY way the world would be more dangerous is if the nuclear war actually broke out, and considering current events, its not a such a far fetched possibility.

I'm not trying to give a history lesson of the US.

kvnkreed, maybe you should, for your own education purposes.

P.S. Imagine what the world would be like today if Japan or Germany had not attacked the US at all in WW1 & WW2,what if the allies didn't stop the axis,what would had happen if the Cuban missle crisis gotten out of hand, what would have happen if America did nothing & let the soviet union win the cold war..etc..

Over 80% of German losses were suffered on the Eastern front. In a single battle for Moscow, Russians suffered more casualties then ALL of Allied forces for the entire duration of the war.

For every American soldier dead Japanese lost 15, while Russians lost 85.

imagine what will happen if Iran & N. korea get nukes,etc....frankly I'm glad that for the MOST part.. America has stood its ground when it really needed to & so should everybody else.

N. Korea already has nukes, and Iran is almost there. Considering repeated disastrous politics, America has stood its ground in a pool of blood from the people to whom that ground belongs to, up until American forces were driven of. Saigon for example.

... I'm not saying the US is perfect...but, we have been a key player to stability in the word for a long time now..... in closing...what if america had lost the Revolutionary war.......................I don't think none of the above would be valid....

I don't think America is perfect either, and what really bothers me that TRUE, good faith accomplishments go unrecognized to this day, while blatant colonial ambitions that are soaked in blood of the innocent people are propagandized and fed to the people as the very foundation of our national pride.

The Russian policy is 'deterrence' while the American policy is ' crush anyone by any means' when they step out of line; don't be fooled by globalsecurity as they certainly did not get this right. One can easily discover which of these powers were terrorizing the third world for the last century so exposing this 'policy' lie is not hard imo.

That is easily confirmed by simply studying American weapon systems verses Soviet/Russian.

The fact is that America simply never invested in actual "defense", and overwhelming majority of resources were spent on offensive rather then defensive weapons.

Name a single American guided coastal defense system.

This is the one of the future American naval "defense" approach;

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy's newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and littoral operations within 100 miles of shore but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA's new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing "asymmetric" threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats.

Absolutely nothing about is "defensive", and absolutely everything about is offensive. Actually literally.

The "offense is the best defense" is the concept of the conqueror with colonial ambitions. It's a simple as that.

Actually South Korea started the war by invading the North and it is pretty hard to blame the North Koreans , Russians or Chinese for that...

StellarX, actually it's a calculated fault on the current American educational system. I learned that individuals are not to blame for such misinformed views, they are simply repeating the fallacies they learned in school.

Unbelievable but true, some American text books say that Duke of Wellington won the battle of Waterloo, and some say it was of Napoleon.

It's not a joke, and when stuff like that is considered as a small error, no wonder that the younger generation is simply not aware that there is a world out side of America, and that America is not an island like England.

Same goes for D-day. Most younger Americans firmly believe that US forces defeated Germany and won the WWII, simply because the rest of the history is simply absent from the curriculum.

That's called social engendering through propagandized educational system. People get outraged when current administration is compared to Nazi Germany, but what is happening in our schools is exactly what was happening in Germany under Hitlers rule.

History was revised to reflect the superiority of the Aryan race, and all other facts were simply discarded, all in order to prepare the youth for propaganda absorption.

Here's an example;

The US supported South Korea. The right choice.

The fact that CIA systematically supported the worst tyrants and dictators is being systematically erased from history, just as with this particular S. Korea example. S. Korea was a tyrannical dictator ship, and in order to prevent socialist uprising, US naturally chose to support the oppressors, just as it has always been done. Pol Pot, Saddam, etc.

The US is not perfect either, and you deny Russia enslaving Eastern Europe for fifty years. The US rebuilt Western Europe.

Same thing. More baseless propaganda. All one has to do is to look into post war East and West Germany. The uprising of West Germans Wolverines had less to do with Nazi remnants, but with the fact that East Germans under Allied occupation were starving while West German received regular rations.

It's a historical fact, and documentary footage is plentifully which clearly recorded anti Ally forces demonstration by West Germans, with signs like "East Germans starve while West Germans eat."

The very reason for the whole East Germany "drop" propaganda campaign was to divert attention from West Germany's uprising against the temporary government.

While Western history records that Soviets built the "Iron curtain" in order to enslave the Germans, the reality is that West Germany was on the brink of chaos, and that especially in Berlin the people were storming into East Germany for the food rations.

It was an issue of civil war, exactly like the situation in current Iraq. Allied forces hand picked and appointed all of the temporary government for West Germany, which naturally quickly degraded into wide spread corruption and abuse, and the people simply had enough of it.

The USA had the atomic bomb before Russia. The USA could have flattened russia, but didn't. If russia for the atom bomb first. Look in a mirror and honestly ask yourself what do you think that would have been like.

Not likely. Soviets had their own bomb by 1946, and in 1945 VVS air defenses were so dense that in order to mount a bombardment of mainland Russia, USAF would have been forced to mount an air raid the scale of which would have surely tipped the Russian off.

Since VVS was on constant full alert and patrolled the entire territory, including with radar equipped night fighters and radar installations, thew best USAF could do at that time is bomb a few non essential targets in Ukraine, and by non essential I mean civilian cities.

The entire Soviet manufacturing industry was moved out of Luftwaffe reach by rail beyond Ural mountains during the war, so by bombing civilian (not industrial) cities in Ukraine US would have singed its own death warrant.

My opinion russia would have tried to enslave the world with there disfunctional police state.

An opinion based on propaganda, that's all. Being uninformed is easily remedied, but purposefully being ignorant is shameful. Everybody has to make their own choice on which of those to they are willing to chose.

Lets see we have this thing called the Internet...That you are using right now. One of the greatest inventions. Who invented it....The American military and US colleges in the late sixties and seventies.

Again, it's only one side of the coin. When one commits the time to investigate the other side, things do chance rather quickly.

The true roots of what we now know as "Internet", was the need for US armed forces to keep a redundant data exchange capacity in case of nuclear war.

If one bunker is destroyed, the data has to have what we now call a "mirror". College experiments were based on military applications of data exchange.

Soviets were doing exactly the same thing, and I recommend taking an in depth look into their fully integrated SAM defense network, which in essence was the first Internet concept that we now recognize.

Even though various military and corporate networks existed through out the time period, what we know as Internet is USER based data exchange network, and that was made possible by cheap personal computers. For that we have o thank two guys that formed Apple.

USSR simply could not afford such a massive investment into civilian market simply do to enormous defense expenditures, and they pored all of their resources into military applications rather then commercial.

In truth, the real catalyst for Internet were BBS boards, and the majority of information exchanged was pornography, just as with the invent of the first VCRs.

Look into the history of usernet, and things will get really clear real fast.

The true financial engine of the Internet was pornography exchange from its very birth.

Yep, that is American tecnology you are using right now. I bet it hurts you to not think the declining Americans did that.

America is a melting pot you know, and I'm sure you don't mean Native Americans. What does hurt is that America is declining, and just as before the great depression of the 20s, everybody simply did not believe it.

Just watch CNNs daily series "The war on the middle class", and 8PM. Pretty damn clear where we are and how we're doing.

You are proud of your country, but don't bring my country down in the process.

Good point, but one has to differentiate what is bringing down, and what is the fact of the matter.

That shows me a citizenry that can't think for itself and get rid of the mass murderer. 25 million people. (farm famines caused from policies, and even selling the food to overseas while citizens died.) and secret police dissappearances.

StellarX covered that well. The only thing I can add, is that until Mr. Bush walks up on the podium naked, high on adrenochrome and eats a live baby in front of the cameras, most American will continue to refuse seeing him for what he is, a puppet.

I think it is crazy how proud you are Russia has all this work done on winning a nuclear war.

StellarX, that's simply a dogma that's continually hammered into all Americans by relentless propaganda, so don't take it personally.

It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, you can be an actual Martian with antennas and green skin, and it wont not matter, because as soon as ANY topic concerns Russia, and if you say anything but accepted propaganda, you will be though of as Russian or foreigner of some kind.

I know it's crazy, but it's true. It's the kind of blind, automatic response people are trained to execute by 50 years of propaganda.

I faced it a number of times, and it's literally kind of creepy to see people struggle with such reality. They just don't know how to accept it, on one hand they know that America is my home with an apple pie and everything, and on the other hand they have no idea how to relate because I'm aware of actually historical facts, and not a cookie cutter propaganda they were fed their entire life.

Please understand that not Americans are that way, the majority of American couldn't care less about all this stuff because we all have more pressing concerns, like paying bills for example, and the younger generation is simply oblivious to just about everything, so usually such "condition" is exhibited by older folks that are stuck in the Cold War era.

A friend of mine is a school dean, and a number of times we talked about what bad shape our educational system is in, that teachers are literally not allowed to correct their students, and that text books are purposefully being massacred by private interests.

Think of this, in American schools, when bringing up a topic, a teacher first asked student to voive their opinions even if they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

I hope you understand how damaging that is, and why through out the civilized world Americans are seen as uneducated fools that just wont shut up even when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

It's down right embarrassing. I travel quite a bit, and I always hate getting passed that "look" in order to get to the actual dialog.

In truth I'm tired of keep saying that not all American are like this, and I always feel uneasy about it. It's almost like having to say that not all Americans eat with their unwashed hands, and chew with their mouths open.

Anyway.

Hi maloy.

Cuban missile crisis got out of hand because US intervened. It was between Soviet Union and Cuba- what Cuba wanted to do with its land. They were allies, and allies have the right to help each other. Russia would have placed the missiles in Cuba, and nothing would have happened. US had missiles in Turkey, along Southern Russian border. So why couldn't Russia have missiles in Cuba.

US did nothing to win the Cold War- the victory fell on its lap, and caught Reagan with surprise of all people. Russia decided to end the Cold War when Gorbachev introduced perestroika and glastnost. US had nothing to do with it. So the correct question for you to ask would be- What if Russia hadn't decided to quit on the idea of communism? We would still be in a Cold War, and fight proxy wars with each other- much like we are still doing today.

All true. The Cuban missile crisis was a political war waged inside American politics. It was a way to pressure Kennedy's cabinet, and such effort literally backfired, because Kennedy and Kruschev for the first time in US/Soviet relations began open talks and established a direct telephone line between two capitals.

Both Kennedy and Kruschev were openly talking about wide spread disarmament, ceasing of hostilities, joint space exploration, etc, all of which would have spelled doom for American military industrial complex. It's simple, no war, no profit.

After Kennedy's assassination, MIC posted profit margins because aggressive American policy was immediately ramped up on the global scale.

While we are discussing nations and politics, the real topic here is the private sector (corporate) agenda and its manipulation (lobby) of the American people and our government.

Key player in world stability? By same standards that colonial Europe was key to world's stability? US contributed nothing to world stability, that did not have utmost benefit for it first.

Here's a fact. After the collapse of Soviet Union, regional wars literally exploded through out the world, more mercenaries were fighting then through out the cold war, and more people have directly and indirectly died from war in the 90s then the ENTIRE WWII.

Another fact, American corporations AND military industrial complex posted RECORD profits that were not seen since the peak of cold war spending in the 60!

It sure is stability, but apparently not for the people, but for money makers,

With all thats been said about the Cold War and the errors in Vietnam, it is still very surprising by the narrowed view of 20th century history that many Americans and some Europeans still possess today.

See my comments on the state of our education. To it's interesting to know, that while Moscow was besieged by Germans in WWII, Moscow schools were still operation even during bombardment of the city, and curriculum included Faust, Goethe, Nietzsche, etc.

Even in piece time we don't get anywhere close to such a commitment to education.

Here's a perfect example of such shameful ignorance.

You really don't give much deep thought to what ya say..Maloy...

Man...now I got to take you to the School of (lets be reasonable & think things through) Now,Maloy I got to make a long arse post to respond to your views which have some hints of bias in them.....Okay so here goes..ya know what just forget it..you & stellar x are to dayum bias..yall steady trying to give a history lesson to justify what Russia,N. korea etc...are not that bad but US is so dayum evil..get off that shyat...byathces..

That's pretty the what majority of our domestic, home grown, all American fools are like. Ignorant, disrespectful, aggressive, and weak.

It is a shame not because it exists, all nations have their share of fools, it's a shame because unlike in other cultures, in America it's perfectly OK to be a fool, and it is actually rewarded.

You see, in a "profit by any means economy" a fool is worth 10 smart guys, because only a fool would spend his money the way most of Americans these days do.

It is because of that we are a dept society, it;s because uneducated majority spends money they don't even have (credit abuse) on utter crap that they don't need.

That, and INCREDIBLE scale of drug abuse is how we end up with such pathetic "mo money" wannabes.

I'm in California, and guys, the sheer amount of stoned people I see on daily bases is frightening. If it's not pot, it's prescription barbiturates and anti-depressants, or over the counter speed in the form of diet pills.

It literally feels that the streets are filled with crazy people, because the majority of them are simply high. Everybody is on the edge, and saying utter nonsense is not even an issue when people shoot at each other on the freeway.

And this is exactly how it works;

Be carefull what you say cauz the moderator is gonna GETCHA!

The sad reality is that with out the system of control, it is exactly the type of behavior to be expected, and unfortunately it is the current reality of America.

As to getting back on topic, the reality of that situation is that we simply do not know. Not including military spending, Russian budget for 2007 is over 50% classified, so there is now way for us to even begin estimating what they are actually up to.

What we do know, is that for a decade they have been actively consolidating and restructuring their entire industrial complex. That is evident by all of the manufacturing operations they have moved from ex-Soviet block into mainland Russia.

That means that they are no longer dependent on US controlled regional puppets, and that now they can effectively mask their actual output.

Not to mention the added economical burden on American aid to regional puppets, since they no longer have the steady stream of cash from Russian military contracts.

All in all, Russian economy went through literally explosive growth, military complex is independent of foreign capital, it's effectively protected against "bankruptcy for hire", it is expanding and regularly fulfilling government orders.

Over 80% of German losses were suffered on the Eastern front. In a single battle for Moscow, Russians suffered more casualties then ALL of Allied forces for the entire duration of the war.

For every American soldier dead Japanese lost 15, while Russians lost 85.

And waht ? Bodies don't win a war You obviously haven't heard of lend lease. One example is that US Lend Lease aid made the Russian Army mobile with the supply of 400 000 studebaker trucks, without which they would not have been able to practice mobile warfare nearly as effectively. The Germans would hvae had plenty of time to regroup and counter punch otherwise.

Actually South Korea started the war by invading the North and it is pretty hard to blame the North Koreans , Russians or Chinese for that...

You kidding right, I thought you were infromed, wel at least you say you are

All one has to do is to look into post war East and West Germany. The uprising of West Germans Wolverines had less to do with Nazi remnants, but with the fact that East Germans under Allied occupation were starving while West German received regular rations.

It's a historical fact, and documentary footage is plentifully which clearly recorded anti Ally forces demonstration by West Germans, with signs like "East Germans starve while West Germans eat."


LOL, you obviously didn't realise that East Germnay was uner Soviet occupation and they refused aid from teh west. Didn't they teach you history at school ? This is very basic stuff.

While Western history records that Soviets built the "Iron curtain" in order to enslave the Germans, the reality is that West Germany was on the brink of chaos, and that especially in Berlin the people were storming into East Germany for the food rations.

LOl, I didn't see any West Germans being sht for trying to cross over to East Germnay, did you ? I think it is obvious from history adn the fact that my German relatives have told me as well, conditions under Soviet occupation in East Germnay were terrible. No one wanted t live there and many died in the attempts to escape to freedom in the west. Only an ignoramus and know nothing states otherwise.
Enough of thi Russia is great crap, it's just ridiculous most of your arguments.

Not likely. Soviets had their own bomb by 1946, and in 1945 VVS air defenses were so dense that in order to mount a bombardment of mainland Russia, USAF would have been forced to mount an air raid the scale of which would have surely tipped the Russian off.

Once gain completely wrong the Soviets didn't have a first bomb until 1949 You said you were informed ?
Also the USAAF was massive and had bases encircling Rusia ie. In CHina, India, NOrth Africa, the missle East, Europe. They could have hit Russia form any points of the compass. Russia would have had the bulk of it's forces deployed in Eastern Europe as well.

Since VVS was on constant full alert and patrolled the entire territory, including with radar equipped night fighters and radar installations, thew best USAF could do at that time is bomb a few non essential targets in Ukraine, and by non essential I mean civilian cities.

Complete bollox, where is your soiurce for this, or is this more of your infromed opinion ?

The entire Soviet manufacturing industry was moved out of Luftwaffe reach by rail beyond Ural mountains during the war, so by bombing civilian (not industrial) cities in Ukraine US would have singed its own death warrant.

LOL the US could hit any target in Russia, you talk as thought they could only attack from Europe, onve again a complete lack of knowledge.

Enough for now

Originally posted by iskander

Here's a fact. After the collapse of Soviet Union, regional wars literally exploded through out the world, more mercenaries were fighting then through out the cold war, and more people have directly and indirectly died from war in the 90s then the ENTIRE WWII.

If this is such a fact, you won't mind supporting it with documentation. Please do so with proof that wars in the 90's resulted in more deaths than World War II. Since you said ENTIRE, that would include military and civilian deaths.

Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by iskander

Here's a fact. After the collapse of Soviet Union, regional wars literally exploded through out the world, more mercenaries were fighting then through out the cold war, and more people have directly and indirectly died from war in the 90s then the ENTIRE WWII.

If this is such a fact, you won't mind supporting it with documentation. Please do so with proof that wars in the 90's resulted in more deaths than World War II. Since you said ENTIRE, that would include military and civilian deaths.

LOL son't expext facts from Iskander. If you do disagree with him be prepared to be labelled uneducated and ill informed desite the fact that he can barely get any facts correct himslef. As seen previously he doesn't even know when the Soviets expoloded their first atomic bomb ( despite being eaily googled - his favourite tol mind you ), so much for being informed

see I know about everything you just mentioned...which is the truth..no US..bashing or Russia,etc bashing..just the facts!!!! Thank you for bringing up these FACTUAL points..because I am feed up with those other bias posters!!!

[edit on 24-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

Next time please keep it all in one post as you make responding so much harder

Originally posted by Seekerof
StellarX, I sure hope you are not talking about the USS Thresher incident (April 10, 1963), because if you are, you are sadly mistaken if you think it was a Russian involvement incident, if that is indeed what you are insinuating/claiming. That "other" submarine was the Cavalla.

Mistake i may be but it happens to be what i believe even if the 'evidence' i presented to rogue may not be enough to convince you or him. I am not sure where i got the 'other submarine' idea from but the only ship actually close by were the Skylark...

I worked for the Portsmouth Naval Repair Yard for a number of years as a Security/SEAL team underwater submarine ops consultant. As such, I currently have in my possession a printed 192 page, with photos, U.S. Government official booklet (34-920) of the investigation done by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy-Congress of the United States on the USS Thresher incident entitled: "Loss of the U.S.S. "Thresher," conducted on June 26, 27, July 23 1963, and July 1, 1964.

So basically the sinking of the Thresher by newly developed super weapons that the US science establishment apparently had no idea about would have been discussed in this report?

Conclusively, there was no Russian involvement.
The problem was in the U.S. Navy's lack of quality control procedures and inspection measures (improper weld techniques, onboard mechanical failures due to inadequate inspection and testing procedures, etc.) on newly built and repaired nuclear submarines.

There were never conclusive evidence that bad construction was the reason for the sinking but it was obviously the only type of conclusion where the most people could escape punishment so that's what they settled on. Coming up with possible things that could go wrong is relatively easy but the chain of events they blame this on seems somewhat unlikely considering the captains comments about 'minor' problems towards the end. Either way feel free to inform me!

If your keeping this within a Cold War timeframe, you may well be correct, but since we all know that the Cold War has long ended (over 15+ years now depending upon what 'dating' you wish to go with), the US has long continued the process of hardening military and some aspects of civilain systems,

Where is the evidence that US military systems and required civilian infrastructure have been hardened at all for EMP bursts all over continental North America? My experience has been that the US strategic planners essentially ignored it and just hoped that having a significant nuclear ICBM/SLBM force could prevent a nuclear war from taking place.

EMP is very destructive because any length of metal will pick up this radio energy. Look at the cars on the street with coat hanger aerials - their radios work fine. So if you have a telephone line or a power line which crosses a continent, an EMP will make it generate about 10 million volts and 10,000 amperes. This is enough to burn through any insulation we have today. If you were to touch a telephone or a radio when the nuke popped, you could be in big trouble.

Modern electronic components (integrated circuits and chips) are very sensitive to EMP. But older electronic components, such as valves (or vacuum tubes) are 1 billion times more resistant. The Russians know this, and they use valves in their MIG 25 Foxbat interceptor fighter. United States investigators found this in 1976 when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan and they pulled the plane to pieces. They started laughing and thought, "Valves in 1976, how primitive!" But late in 1977, the Pentagon rewrote the handbook on the effects of nuclear weapons to advise the use of valves where possible. One Soviet war manual said, "To achieve surprise in a war, high altitude nuclear explosions can be carried out to destroy the electronics of satellites whether they are spy satellites or communication satellites".

If you were flying in a modern aeroplane, and an EMP rippled past, the plane would fall out of the sky like a bunch of car keys. In 1970, Boeing tried to harden some 747s by wrapping the cables in lead, and putting wire mesh on the windows. When they tested it they found that some 12,000 circuits, essential for the running of the aircraft, had fused. Later, they started from scratch, and hardened the 747 right from the very beginning. It didn't have any windows, and it cost five times as much as a normal 747, but it was hardened - and there was only one ever built.

www.abc.net.au...

In 1997 Congress held what was apparently its first public hearing on high-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP). This topic had "riveted the attention of the military nuclear tactical community for three and a half decades since the first comparatively modest one very unexpectedly turned off the lights over a few million square miles in the mid-Pacific," testified Dr. Lowell Wood, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist who has worked for the past three decades in both the offensive and defensive aspects of EMP. "The entire topic of EMP was highly classified," said Dr. Wood.

The Blackout Bomb is simply a high-yield nuclear weapon, or a smaller nuclear weapon designed to maximize gamma-ray emissions. The EMP "laydown" of a thermonuclear burst moves at the speed of light, striking the Earth to the horizon at line-of-sight from the detonation. Gamma rays actually radiate spherically from the blast point, creating space EMP which, Dr. Wood explained in written hearing testimony, would damage satellite electronics even at great distances from the explosion. "The basic point," he said, "is that essentially all of our conventional military capability and all of our civilian infrastructure is highly vulnerable to EMP damage. The dollar numbers in the civilian infrastructure alone can be conservatively estimated at several trillion dollars' worth of infrastructure which is at risk potentially even from a single pulse--several trillion dollars."

Our civilization's vulnerability to EMP has increased exponentially since the 1962 Johnston Island test, which blacked out power grids and shut down autos in Hawaii, a thousand miles away from the burst. Microchips with integrated circuits are much more vulnerable to EMP than were the vacuum tubes used in the sixties. And, said Dr. Wood, the smaller that the integrated circuits get, the more vulnerable they are to EMP.

www.sonic.net...

the Russians have not continued the process and those systems that had been hardened are now deteriorating due to lack of upgrading, maintenance, funds, etc. The same thing is and has been occurring within the Russian military--all branches.

You are in my opinion very badly informed then. They still have a superior nuclear war fighting force and a national ABM missile force with probably 2000 or more missiles ready to fire. I am sure you must have noticed me mentioning this all before?

Where is the vast amount of Russian populace, industry, and military bases, men, and hardware/equipment located within the vastness of Russia--East or West?

In Siberian gulags?

you answer that, consider that it will also only take one US EMP/nuclear device and detonation to put "Russia" back into the Stone Age, oopps, I mean "pre-industrial society" that most parts of Russia is still attempting to progress out of.

Actually their strategic and conventional forces are simply not dependent on integrated circuits for survival and neither is their governmental and civilian infrastructure. People just have no idea what the USSR were working towards all those decades and i am surprised that people simply think nothing got done. It's not that they simply made nothing , instead of TVs and cars, but that they constructed vast bunker networks so that the absolute majority of their urban population would have had ample means of surviving a nuclear exchange even if such was directed against cities themselves. The reason Russia is still not investing heavily in solid state and integrated circuit technologies implementation is simply because not so much have changed and because they are STILL preparing to fight and win that same old conflict.

You are also aware that over half of the Russian populace, if not more, does not have indoor bathrooms or indoor plumbing, running water, telephones, computers, TVs, etc? Would that be considered "pre-industrial," as well?

]You might want to talk to a couple of Russian and Lithuanian professors I have, who visit their repsective families in Russia and Lithuania each year (during the summer).

I have very many objections to these often claimed 'facts' but they are of no real interest to this discussion beside making your obvious disdain for that country known. All i can say is that it's quite revealing that a country with such very real problems has poured so much labour into the basic principle of national survival in the long run. All America's riches have not resulted in a nation prepared in any way to survive a major confrontation with such a state.

Furthermore, even if the Russian accomplished such a feat, their military would not wholly be able to make or take any advantage from it, and definately not in some large degree.

And why would their conventional forces matter at all if they can simply dictate policy to a prostrate US government? Do you really believe that they are the aggressors in this world or have been at any time since 1917?

Continued