The new Russian scare and US options

The great question is Russia a threat. After some thinking I feel that it would be in the best interests for the US to forcibly cause a complete collapse of Russia. Inflation run wild, joblessness, civil war, total chaos, and yes - Russian scientists and generals running to the highest bidders with Nuclear bombs and technology.

Why?

I feel the Nth State theory is flawed. It suggests that there is a point when too many nations have the bomb and will all use their arsenals in a final apocalyptic showdown.

The reality is every nation has its enemies, and balance of power would reduce almost all uses.

The US would have an easier time managing a myriad of alliances and enemies wit limited Nuclear technology than facing a global war with Russia. While the latter is most certainly less likely to happen than limited nuclear wars if many nations take over Russia's arsenal; if the latter does happen the US will lose and the world will plummit into a dark age of some period of time.

The US would be out of range from most nations that buy the nukes, many nukes can be captured, launch vehicles will be nearly impossible to move, and subs can be sunk as the effectiveness of Nuclear subs requires intensive care.

So the collapse of Russia would not be as dangerous to the US as purported.

What is dangerous is the new Russian scare.

The Russians seem to be selecting important countries to receive Nuclear technology and secretly build Nuclear weapons (so the russians can deny their act in proliferation) in order to create a complex problem for the United States driving up the US's defense costs while allowing Russia to use technological leverage, common enemies and economics to create a new sphere of influence to once again be strong enough to face-off against the US directly.

first of all russia is hardly a threat to the US, not only is our military far superior to the russians we have more influence on the world scene something that goes along way. who would ally with russia if they got hostile? iran?? HSAHAHAH. man seriously please rethink your posts before you actualy post. russia is backed into a corner, all of their former satellite states are going to join nato and the EU.

the way I look at it is if the world had a choice once again to either be influenced by the russians or americans they would choose the americans again, the russians are having a hard time with the whole democracy thing.

Originally posted by ape
first of all russia is hardly a threat to the US, not only is our military far superior to the russians we have more influence on the world scene something that goes along way. who would ally with russia if they got hostile? iran?? HSAHAHAH. man seriously please rethink your posts before you actualy post. russia is backed into a corner, all of their former satellite states are going to join nato and the EU.

the way I look at it is if the world had a choice once again to either be influenced by the russians or americans they would choose the americans again, the russians are having a hard time with the whole democracy thing.

"russia is hardly a threat to the US? Well maybe not now and if now then covertly, but dont deny the fact that Putin is as sly as the slyest fox you can find, and he is an intelligent man. I beleive he is setting Russia up to come back to the forefront of world pilitics and power and the boom in natural resources production in Russia and rise in the global price of resources is fueling this run to the top.

Your quote of "Not only is our military far superior than the Russians...."

Give me a break! Yeah technologically there might be a small edge over the russians but what about the large disparity in technological advancement over the Iraqi Insurgency?

Yeah, really looks like the US is winning there with their superiority doesnt it.

He who is defending his homeland always has the advantage in most cases for not only does he posses local knowledge by has nothing else left to loose, which the occupying powers do!

since when do you go comparing iraq to the standard of the US military? we dominated the iraqi army easy, occupying is a different story, here we have cowards in civilian clothes killing women and children and blowing up markets, if we were to go to war with russia you can damn well bet there would be no more infrastructure to salvage, the US specialty is total dominance and distruction. russia has not proven they are formidable and anyone who gloats about russian power is obviously living in the 60's and 70's.

oh big whoop they export oil and gas, so do alot of other countrys only russia is investing more in their natural resources, that will only go so far especially when you have zero influence aside from exporting weaponry.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Putin is as sly as the slyest fox you can find

You can say that again. It seems that North Korea and Russia may have some kind of alliance in the future.

Most alliances start with trades such as North Korea Asks For Russia Support, Offers Uranium

They plan to use the Uranium Deposits to then sell as Nuclear Fuel to China and Vietnam which will become highly profitable and ultimately getting them back some economic power.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The great question is Russia a threat. After some thinking I feel that it would be in the best interests for the US to forcibly cause a complete collapse of Russia. Inflation run wild, joblessness, civil war, total chaos, and yes - Russian scientists and generals running to the highest bidders with Nuclear bombs and technology.

We tried that before. Under Reagan, the U.S. had a policy of trying to outspend the Soviets in weapons. The plan was to force USSR into bankruptcy by trying to get them to use all their money on military spending, until they were broke. It worked and today Russia is a very poor country, just as it was then, but worse. They still haven't recovered and they have a long ways to go before they do. It will take them quite a while to recover economically, so there is no imminent threat from Russia. I think they are far more intent in building up their country.

Originally posted by ape
first of all russia is hardly a threat to the US, not only is our military far superior to the russians

Once again where is the evidence of that superiority as i have read quite widely over the last few years and never saw such a trend occuring?

we have more influence on the world scene something that goes along way.

Not really as that would not have led to a massively declining economy and a decline of nearly 60% in the dollar's value. Since oil is traded in dollars one can even say that oil costs the same now as it did five years ago when taking into account the severe devaluation.

who would ally with russia if they got hostile?

China, Iran, Syria, many of it's former 'republics', India, Brazil and it's allies in South America, Indonesia and much of Africa? The first few will actively fight on Russia's side imo while the rest will refuse aid and passage to say nothing of vital goods.

iran?? HSAHAHAH. man seriously please rethink your posts before you actualy post. russia is backed into a corner, all of their former satellite states are going to join nato and the EU.

Europe will not come to America's rescue and can not as it will be incinerated if it tried. Russia could still take on NATO and prevail even if it does not employ strategic nuclear weapons.

the way I look at it is if the world had a choice once again to either be influenced by the russians or americans they would choose the americans

Russian actions in the last hundred years have killed few people compared to western and especially American foreign policy actions so I'll have to go with Russia as it exists today as it has not shown us a history of brutal oppression of almost every third world state it deals with in world affairs

again, the russians are having a hard time with the whole democracy thing.

So are Americans who refuse to employ their constitutional rights in defense of their civil liberties or those of people in other countries.

Stellar

[edit on 30-12-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by ape
since when do you go comparing iraq to the standard of the US military? we dominated the iraqi army easy, occupying is a different story,

Sure is and that is exactly what you would have to manage if you tried to occupy any other country with normally far better trained and organized resistance forces.

here we have cowards in civilian clothes killing women and children and blowing up markets,

There is no convincing evidence that the majority of these bombs are being set up the Iraqi resistance or that they are aimed at civilians who are not actively aiding the American forces.

if we were to go to war with russia you can damn well bet there would be no more infrastructure to salvage, the US specialty is total dominance and distruction

A fabrication of epic proportion. Russia has long invested resources in passive civilian and infrastructure strengthening that is likely to blunt or negate even a strike aimed at civilian centers.

The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels, and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These

facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents, and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...

Industrial dispersal. The Soviets have been involved in an industrial dispersal program for more than 15 years. Their approach to the program has been and continues to be the siting of new industrial complexes in towns and settlements with populations of 100,000 people or less. The program has several advantages for the Soviets. First, it is of great economic importance from the standpoint of accelerating and expanding their economic development; this is especially true regarding growth of such sparsely developed areas as Siberia. Second, it prevents high concentrations of industry in a small number of large industrial centers and helps the Soviets make better use of their abundant natural resources. Third, dispersal creates a proliferation of aimpoints for U.S. strategic planners and greatly complicates targeting tasks.

Industrial hardening. The Soviets have an ongoing program designed to harden their industrial base. Included in this program are underground facilities, new plant construction techniques, construction of duplicate plants, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, and expedient techniques. The first three hardening methods can be productively utilized only for new facilities and require a long lead time for fruition. The fourth method, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, has near-term implications but is expensive. The fifth means, expedient techniques, is relatively inexpensive and has short-term implications; it will be the focus of this discussion.

If current Soviet expedient hardening preparations for protection of their industrial base are implemented on a large scale, the effectiveness of a U.S. retaliatory capability could be significantly degraded. By utilizing relatively inexpensive and simple expedient techniques such as packing machinery in sandbags, the Soviets could make their industry relatively invulnerable to overpressures of a few pounds per square inch (psi). Depending on the specific precautions taken in mounting and protecting machines, they can be made to survive overpressures in the range of 40 to 300 psi. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate specific hardening techniques.7

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Peter Pry, a former CIA analyst and author of a new book on Russian nuclear operations, said the continued construction of the Russian strategic defense sites is ominous and cannot be dismissed by U.S. officials as "inertia" from Cold War-era strategic policies. "It shows they take the threat of nuclear war so seriously that they're willing to spend scarce resources on it," Mr. Pry said, adding that he was not familiar with the CIA report. "These things are tying down billions of dollars in rubles that could go into other enterprises the Russians need - for example, providing housing for Russian military officers." Mr. Pry said Russian press reports say the underground facility at Yamantau Mountain covers an area as large as the Capital Beltway.

www.globalsecurity.org...

On 4/l/77 The Press, published in Christchurch, N.Z., ran a major news story under the headlines: Grim picture painted of Soviet war preparedness. The article featured an interview with a Major-General
George Keenanthe man who has perhaps done more than any other to acquaint U.S. Intelligence Services with estimates of the Soviet Union's strategic capabilities and objectives. Keegan has recently retired from the post as head of the U.S Air Force's intelligence branch. In the interview he said quite categorically that he believes Russia has already achieved military superiority over the U.S.

He spoke of the astonishing civil defense measures which have been developed, and continue to be developed, in the Soviet Union. He stated that 25% of all Russian factory workers are in training programs preparing them for civil defense leadership roles. Major defense manufacturing facilities in Russia have been dispersed well clear of all existing major industrial areas so as to afford a large measure of protection for those industries in the event of nuclear war. Keegan alleged that he was in possession of ample evidence to show that the Russians are in the process of building up huge stocks of foods and grains, in preparation for war. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the Russians are not merely aiming for superiority but are "preparing for war. . . ." Evidence available quite openly in Russia, contained in Soviet literature, shows that already the Soviets have constructed enough mass-shelters in key strategic industrial areas to protect More than sixty million from nuclear attack. Bunkers have been provided for the civilian population in all main cities, including several which are the size of football fields. "My collection team." said the Major-General. "have identified grain-storage bunkers the size of several football fields on the perimeter of all main cities, guarded by the military -- the most elaborate of their kind in the world. We are observing the most extensive peace-time war preparations in recorded history. . ."

www.christadelphia.org...

According to one recent account ["We Keep Building Nukes For All the Wrong Reasons", By Bruce G. Blair, The Washington Post Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page B01] "... the Yamantau and Kosvinsky mountains in the central and southern Urals ... were huge construction projects begun in the late 1970s, when U.S. nuclear firepower took special aim at the Communist Party's leadership complex. Fearing a decapitating strike, the Soviets sent tens of thousands of workers to these remote sites, where U.S. spy satellites spotted them still toiling away in the late 1990s. Yamantau is expected to be operating soon. According to diagrams and notes given to me in the late 1990s by SAC senior officers, the Yamantau command center is inside a rock quartz mountain, about 3,000 feet straight down from the summit. It is a wartime relocation facility for the top Russian political leadership. It is more a shelter than a command post, because the facility's communications links are relatively fragile. As it turned out, the quartz interferes with radio signals broadcast from inside the mountain. Therefore the main communications links are either cable or radio transmitters that broadcast from outside the center."

www.globalsecurity.org...

The Soviet Civil Defense program was the largest and most comprehensive war survival program of any country during the Cold War, involving 30 million Soviet civilians and 70% of the industrial work force, for a total cost of approximately $1 billion per year. The relatively high amount of time, money, and manpower devoted to Civil Defense showed its importance in the eyes of Soviet political and military leaders. The program was given equal status with other parts of the armed forces. "Civil Defense," therefore, "had a central place in Moscow's strategic thinking and constituted a major element in its military preparedness effort.

www.piedmontcommunities.us...=page&gid=01303001151018293682662999

Consider the size and nature of the effort involved: In the mid-1970s U.S. intelligence satellites revealed massive underground constructions in Russia. According to Major General George Keegan, former chief of U.S. Air Force intelligence, there were "incredible photographs of civil defenses of all types going up all over the Soviet Union."

In the 39 largest cities of the former USSR every apartment house built after 1955 had a nuclear blast and fallout shelter built into the foundation. Every new factory also had a shelter system. Underneath Moscow there were 75 huge underground command posts, each one as large as the Pentagon. According to Gen. Keegan, these were protected from nuclear assault by four hundred feet of earth fill and a hundred feet of reinforced concrete. Huge storage containers were also detected by USAF intelligence These contained water and diesel fuel.


laissez-fairerepublic.com...

The Soviet belief that war might be protracted requires the survivability needed for follow-on strikes, along with war reserves, protection for people and equipment, and the capacity to reload launchers. For their ICBM, LRINF and air defense forces, the Soviets have stocked extra missiles, propellants, and warheads throughout the USSR. ICBM silo launchers can be reloaded in a matter of days, and provision has been made for the decontamination of those launchers. Plans for the survival of necessary equipment and personnel have been developed and practiced. Resupply ships are available to reload Soviet SSBNs in protected waters. Despite these comprehensive warfighting objectives and ambitious development and deployment programs over the years, the Soviets are continuing to modernize all aspects of their strategic forces. Much of what the Soviets have done since September 1981 involves the consummation of programs begun in the 1970s and offers the first signs of new programs designed to help remedy weaknesses still remaining and to allow them to attain their own objectives in the face of prospective Western programs.

www.fas.org...

Civil Defense
A dozen years ago, we studied in detail Soviet civil defenses in a number of cities. If we believe those cities are typical and extrapolate the amount of building they have done in the meantime, then according to these unproved assumptions, the Soviets now have good shelters for most of their city population.

Whether this extrapolation is right or not, I do not know. The CIA has either neglected its duty to find out, or has found out -- but not told us. Plans to protect millions of people cannot be considered secret information. We should know, and we have a right to know. We have done practically nothing about civil defense.

www.commonwealthclub.org...

And these are just the entirely passive defenses,which are still there, to say nothing of their active defenses in the form of a national ABM defense system based on missiles and DEW's which i will be informing you about in other posts today.

. russia has not proven they are formidable and anyone who gloats about russian power is obviously living in the 60's and 70's.

Where do you think all that power went? Why do you believe that everything they had suddenly stopped working in 1990?

oh big whoop they export oil and gas, so do alot of other countrys only russia is investing more in their natural resources, that will only go so far especially when you have zero influence aside from exporting weaponry.

I just don't understand what you believe what you think you know on as it's certainly not to be found in official defense and intelligence journals.

Stellar

[edit on 30-12-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by forestlady
We tried that before. Under Reagan, the U.S. had a policy of trying to outspend the Soviets in weapons.

The effort was staged to try gain back strategic initiative but it was far too late and it failed.

The plan was to force USSR into bankruptcy by trying to get them to use all their money on military spending, until they were broke.

The authors of that strategy ( the civilian planners in the Pentagon under Reagan ) are in disagreement with your ideas and i have no idea where you came up with them. Why not go back and investigate the claims of the authors of the American rearmament program in the early 80's and realize that they were trying to catch up as is pretty obvious from reading defense briefings from those times.

It worked and today Russia is a very poor country, just as it was then, but worse.

The two issues are not connected and if they were western intelligence would not have heard about it when the bricks flying off the Berlin wall started falling on them. Western intelligence agencies seemed as surprised as the rest of us and once again Reagan and some of his inner circle people have admitted that there was no amount of money the US could spend at that time to force a system like the USSR's into 'bankruptcy which is a completely ludicrous notion in respect to the resource based economy of the USSR.

They still haven't recovered and they have a long ways to go before they do.

They never were down as one can see from the hidden military spending and it was evidently a combination of faking the downfall of their empire and mismanagement ( to say nothing of the quick action by some agencies in the west to exploit the troubles in the civilian sectors) of the civilian economy that resulted in much of the added suffering Russians are now suffering.

It will take them quite a while to recover economically,

Which is very much irrelevant in terms of their strategic clout. Your still assuming they require tens of millions of men with guns to win a nuclear exchange or financial and economy warfare. Do you realize that the dollar has been devalued by almost 60% since 9-11?

so there is no imminent threat from Russia. I think they are far more intent in building up their country.

Russia does not have the threaten anyone as their strategic superiority is imo that overwhelming. Only former superpowers with massive armies and failing economies need to rely on bluster and bullying to gain 'respect' from third world nations that they must exploit to stage even a pretense of economic health.

Stellar

funny you comment on this 14days after I i posted, i forgot about this.

i find it funny how you think russia is still a major global player, they are not. people are not interested in being influenced by the russians, take a good look at how many people flock to invest for a better life in russia and you will find the exact opposite, you are known for posting and having lopsided links and opinions anyways.


from what I can recall the last time russia occupied a country on a grandscale it was in afghanistan, a campaign in which russia showed no respect for human life because they could not handle the combat situation and adapt, they resorted to WW2 tactics and gunning down women and children. take a good look at how many people voted in iraq for the current government they have before you go screaming iraq resistance crap, you mean saddam loyalist basthist teaming up with al qaeda and bombing shia mosques to piss off the shia as a last resort to counter the US strategy, you dont know what you're talking about.

Russian scare? Is this a joke or does anyone seriously consider that eliminating Russia is an optimal choice given the current circumstances?


First, while Russia is certainly weaker than the US today, if you honestly believe that elimination of Russia can be successfully carried out you need a reality check. Soviet Union crumbled because it was a forced allience of ethnically and historially diverse nations. But any attempt of open war with Russia will yeild nothing short of defeat. Plus any hostile action towards Russia could throw world politics off balance and create new alliances which would either lead to a World War or a Cold War (Russia, India, China, Iran, among others). The impact of this could threaten not only world stability, but the very status of superpower US possesses.


And how did you conclude that Russia is in any way a threat to the US? Or is the current American foreign policy to reject facts and go straight to invasion plans. Seemed to work in Iraq- for a while- untill you found out that fabricated facts and a couple thousand dead soldiers don't get you any positive PR points on the homefront, not to mention the world stage (which seems to be on you ignore list after failing to comply with Bush's post 9-11 orders).

How is Russia a threat? Because it possesses efective means to defend itself and insure than no foreign power will try to invade it again as has happened twice in the last 2 centuries? Because it has an adequate amount of energy resources to have some influence in Europe? Or because it embraces capitalism "The American Way" when it sells weapons technologies to disreputable and precarious regimes in Third World countries?

You claim that Russia is helping Iran and North Korea acquire WMD and other weapons technologies. Well lets not forget a certain European member of NATO that got away with selling nuclear technology to Saddam Hussein. Oh and if it wasn't 'yours truly' that sold chemical weapon systems to Iraq in order to fuel the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Russia did not give North Koreans any nuclear technology- they acquired it themselves. As for Iran- the Iranians did most of the development themselves. Russia simply embraced a financial opportunity. It did not violate any international pacts, agreements, laws, or resolutions. Who US chooses to ally itself with or make enemies with is none of its business.


US is naturally opposed to Russia's actions, and perceives it as a possible enemy, because of the trailing edge of the Cold War and the ensuing world destabilization. Russia might have been reduced to nearly nothing economically-wise through the 90's, but miitarily it remained an untouchable military wise. Any current attempts by US to destabilize and/or break apart Russia would be quickly recognized by interior agencies and could lead to a new cold war. Not to mention the ensuing arms sales to nations like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea. I

But not to worry- US couldn't even successfully dismount Lukashenka in Belarus during last year's elections (and believe me it tried), or take care of Chavez and his Latin American socialist revolutionary wanna-be buddies in Peru and Bolivia. And here to expect to disessamble Russia. Just a hint- don't use your Iraq tactics.

But yes- there is a good reason to worry. The way it's going now with Putin, Russia will strengthen both militarily and economically in less than 2 decades. US meanwhile will try its very hardest to keep its position as the sole superpower- and with these ultimately futile attempts will come many more military quagmires. Just as with China- US is absolutely helpless in respect to Russia. It has to just sit and watch, and stick to playing in its Middle Eastern sandbox untill either funds or people's patience runs out.



You can't fight wars on all fronts. US is up to its neck combating Islamist radicals, and it is being dragged down by its own political and corporate intrigues. The world has come to understand that war is America's biggest industry today. Forget about exporting electronics, or cars, or resources, or products. US economy is increasingly coming to revolve around war. The ups and downs of the economy can be manipulated through foreign policy. The foreign policy that drives your nation is no longer decided by your representatives. It is decided by corporate conglomerates and their political puppets.

If US wants to think about long term strategy, it should consider fighting its worst enemy first- the one within it. You look for enemies like Russia and Iran to justify your hostile foreign policy. You fabricate reasons to antagonize your enemies and pave way towards yet another military conflict. Face it- this is the only way US can keep its economy from crumbling in front of new Asian superpowers.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by maloy]

[edit on 12-1-2007 by maloy]

the US economy wont 'crumble', if that happens the world will take a huge hit. china and india rely on the US and the EU more than russia, so please get your facts straight. there is alot of opposition within russia right now some of which get assassignated, they have major domestic issues and have a long way to go if they ever want to be a major figure again. waving nukes in peoples faces will only get u so far, you gotta pack alot more then that.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
the US economy wont 'crumble', if that happens the world will take a huge hit. china and india rely on the US and the EU more than russia, so please get your facts straight. there is alot of opposition within russia right now some of which get assassignated, they have major domestic issues and have a long way to go if they ever want to be a major figure again. waving nukes in peoples faces will only get u so far, you gotta pack alot more then that.
[edit on 13-1-2007 by ape]

Please enlighten us on what "political opposition" was assassinated in Russia. And I am not talking about some psycho two-bit disgruntled ex-spy in London who was reportedly fetching weapons for Chechens.

And the only real violent political struggle was during the constitutional crisis in Moscow in 1993, where US-backed Yeltsin violated the constitution and then illegally disbanded the parliamentary leaders (DUMA) who were trying to prevent him from letting Russia be robbed by the West.

And what do you mean by "a lot" of opposition? As far as I know Bush isn't very popular among the crowds in the US. Putin won reelection with far more votes than any US president could hope to have. What Russians are really "opposed to", is what happened to Russia in the 90's thanks to US-backed idiots like Yeltsin and his corrupted band of oligarchs.


"Major domestic issues" are present in every large country, and US is far from the role model in this sense. US has no fewer issues domestically than Russia, and these issues do not prevent Russia from being a player on the world stage.

And who is waving nukes around? Seems like it is the US that is eager to stretch its military muscle. I never recall Russia threatening anyone with nuclear weapons to get something they want. It even stood by while NATO illegaly invaded Serbia, which was the closest thing resembling a Russian ally in Europe. Nor did Russia even remotely hint at military consequences when US-backed puppets brainwashed the people in Ukraine and Georgia with their "colored revolutions" (AKA a coup in benevolent disguise).



If you try really hard you might convince yourself that Russia is your enemy and is one of those "evil" empires that wants to destroy your happiness and democracy (or whats left of it). If you try even harder and employ your "free media" (free in the sense that politicians and corporations are "free" to use it for their propaganda), you might even convince your closest allies that Russia needs to be taken care off and isolated from the civilized world. Hey you successfully demonized Communism, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and those menacing socialists like Chavez down south. Heck US perfected this strategy.

Only don't expect the rest of the world to play the same game as you are playing, and don't be surprised when the next 9/11 occurs and you discover that 2/3 of the world doesn't appreciate your attempts to spread freedom, democracy, and happiness (among other things such as 5,000 pound smart bombs and occupation forces) around the world.


Oh and US economy is bound to crumble. As China and India are rising at record breaking pace, the US economy will step aside as the world standard. The dollar is no longer what it used to be even 10 years ago. It might not be clearly crumbling yet, but it is struggling to stay on top. And the world won't be severly impacted because it will not all 'crumble' instantly ala 1929. It will happen gradually, and by that time nations like China would not be impacted much. China and India rely on US for the time being- while their economies and infrastructures are building up. Another decade or 2, and the dependency might well be reversed.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by maloy]

Edit: I welcome your attempt to turn this into a discussion Maloy and hope to hear more from you.

Originally posted by ape
funny you comment on this 14days after I i posted, i forgot about this.

I don't see what's so funny about it but i do know that is it quite irrelevant how long i wait to respond to your posts. Your apparent short attention/memory span ( 14 days only?) probably explains why you have learnt so little , that has anything to do with reality, in all these years.

i find it funny how you think russia is still a major global player, they are not.

Well i think they are and believe that i showed it to be so. You have not show so far that the Russian nuclear weaponry or ABM defense does not work and if either works even in part that makes them the dominant strategic power in world affairs.

people are not interested in being influenced by the russians, take a good look at how many people flock to invest for a better life in russia and you will find the exact opposite,

That is not how influence works but investment is going to China in the old fashioned way while Russia seems to do well just aiding in the manipulation of the energy and resource markets.

you are known for posting and having lopsided links and opinions anyways.

Well if you feel so strongly about that why not attempt to prove it?

from what I can recall the last time russia occupied a country on a grandscale it was in afghanistan, a campaign in which russia showed no respect for human life because they could not handle the combat situation and adapt, they resorted to WW2 tactics and gunning down women and children.

Much like the American occupation of Iraq then? At least the Russians were invited in by the then 'president' which i guess is almost a excuse of sorts. If not for the CIA support of the radical Muslim groups ( who chanted "death to America" right after changing "death to the Soviet Union) that should not have had control of any type of control anywhere in the world i don't think things would have gotten anywhere near as bad as they did. The CIA were past experts at destroying constructive change wherever it did not suit their interest and if the USSR wanted to invade Afghanistan they could have done so in 1970.

take a good look at how many people voted in iraq for the current government they have before you go screaming iraq resistance crap,

If you think there was anything democratic about the elections and the outcome that it ensured you , once again, don't know what happened.

you mean saddam loyalist basthist teaming up with al qaeda

Well that's not what the US army thinks but please believe whatever you like !

and bombing shia mosques to piss off the shia as a last resort to counter the US strategy, you dont know what you're talking about.

There is little or no evidence that it's Sunni/loyalist that is responsible for the bombing of the mosques and plenty of evidence that it's false flag operations staged by same old western intelligence and military groups that have been doing it for decades all over the third world.

I may be wrong but i can truthfully claim that i at least base my views on what can be found in official documents and that i do not just believe what i like as you have chosen to do.

Stellar

[edit on 14-1-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by maloy
Oh and US economy is bound to crumble. As China and India are rising at record breaking pace, the US economy will step aside as the world standard. The dollar is no longer what it used to be even 10 years ago. It might not be clearly crumbling yet, but it is struggling to stay on top. And the world won't be severly impacted because it will not all 'crumble' instantly ala 1929. It will happen gradually, and by that time nations like China would not be impacted much. China and India rely on US for the time being- while their economies and infrastructures are building up. Another decade or 2, and the dependency might well be reversed.

With the current 'status qou' it would seem somewhat legit for the US economy to crumble. You are correct in saying China and India are riseing, because they are. But, as you will soon find out, none of this isnt written in stone!

Stay with me now. Picture this, America with a new taxtion system, in which it will actually 'encourage' manufactuers to relocate to the US because it would make it more 'profitable' to do business in the US than say the above mentioned places (china/india). This will greatly help americas current delima it faces(if you want to call it that). And at the same time in doing so, making US manufacterers more 'competititve' out in the open market with the likes of India and china. America has such a taxation system currently in the works called the "fair tax". No it doesnt cure cancer. But it is said, that in the first proposed year of the fairtax, americas economy would grow by 10.5 %. And if enacted today would double americs current GDP by 2015. All because america ups the economic bar! Its capitlism at its best!

Another precursor that will, and is not being taken into consideration here is technology that America will have developed in the near future. Technology such as the revolutionary Nanotechnology itself. And if you havent heard the things nanotech will do I suggest you read up. It will do for us, what the wheel did for the caveman x1000! Nanotechnology will soon make it obsolete to make things such as toys, cars and pretty much everything else that is being made by hand which is being manufactuered in countrys like china, and india, which is done under the current system. It will do so by making it more profitable to invest in "assemblers'' which are tiny nanobots that will virtually do everything, make toys, food, cars, everything!.. That itself will pretty much be the 'dagger in the back' for the undeveloped countrys such as china and india. Or the "nail in the coffin" which ever phrase suits your vernacular! Thats without the fairtax enacted. Just imagine the beast it would create (US) with the fairtax enacted?

So in order for the US to just simply 'crumble' the US would have to do nothing in order to stop such an event. So the US wont simply just slip away or crumble by actually doing something.

However, you on the other hand seem to be under the mistaken delusion that the US will crumble by doing somthing. Or, quite possibly, you havent taken that into consideration yet.... Either way it sounds like gleefully wishful thinking on your part. Well, its like they say... Wish in one hand while sh*tting in the other, see which hand feels up first.


[edit on 123131p://2501am by semperfoo]

I am sure there are steps US can take to prevent its economy from degenerating, or at least delay the process. However it seems that currently much of the focus in the economy is conservative business practices (if it's working now, stick with it), and there is little innovation because of the risks involved. The government seems to be only marginally interested in ecnomy, and is far more focused on foreign affairs- perhaps it is trying to "fix" the economy from without as opposed to from within. As long as US government is on this crusade to get the world rid of "evil", domestic issues and economy will take a back seat.

How will the more favorable tax treatment be reflected on the government, which is facing record deficits as it is? How will the necessary wars be financed? Remember- the US military is now its own industry in America, thus part of the economy. As I see it US is staying steadfast on the same track it was on for the last 30 years- the track that will ultimately bury their economy.

And all the technology you are talking about has yet to come into full use, and the economic results can not be surely predicted. And what makes you think Asian countries won't catch on? China and India are quickly catching up with US on technological scale.


Surely something can be done, but who do you expect to do it? I do not wish for the US economy to crumble, nor do I stand to gain anything from it. It just seems to me that the US empire is in its final stages, and that's why it is relying on its military for short term goals.

China is far richer (in terms of monetary reserves and surpluses), more populated, and I would say more eager to excel (US is hybernating by comparison). Certainly something devastating can happen in China and reverse this cycle, and the US will again be on top. Now will US try to prevent China from reaching true superpower status (both militarily and economically), or will it focus on its own economy instead. Something tells me it's the former. You might not tie it in, but what US is doing in the Middle East might well have something to do with China.


And even if this doesn't have anything to do anything with economy, it is still troubling why the US is so eager to find new enemies, like Russia.

Originally posted by maloy
I am sure there are steps US can take to prevent its economy from degenerating, or at least delay the process. However it seems that currently much of the focus in the economy is conservative business practices (if it's working now, stick with it), and there is little innovation because of the risks involved. The government seems to be only marginally interested in ecnomy, and is far more focused on foreign affairs- perhaps it is trying to "fix" the economy from without as opposed to from within. As long as US government is on this crusade to get the world rid of "evil", domestic issues and economy will take a back seat.

Im going to have to agree with you on this. You made some great points that really do hit close to home. We do seem a little 'busy' for the time being on other things, as we should. But if we werent in the current mess that we are in, I feel that we could focus more so on bettering the US economy, and at the same time bettering the world.

How will the more favorable tax treatment be reflected on the government, which is facing record deficits as it is? How will the necessary wars be financed? Remember- the US military is now its own industry in America, thus part of the economy. As I see it US is staying steadfast on the same track it was on for the last 30 years- the track that will ultimately bury their economy.

Well one thing the fairtax would do is make the american governments spending more transparent to the american ppl. And with American GDP growing 2x-3x faster then it currently is, our debt would viritually be a none factor in the future. The fairtax pays down our debt. And with more of a controlled spending, wont be much a problem for futures sake.
Also, the FairTax solves Americas social security crisis and pays for Medicare. Something the current systme doesnt do.

I would also like to say that the fairtax has been heavily researched for the past 10 years, and 75 economist are currently endorsing the fairtax proposal for america.

And all the technology you are talking about has yet to come into full use, and the economic results can not be surely predicted. And what makes you think Asian countries won't catch on? China and India are quickly catching up with US on technological scale.

Correct. However the US is spending the most $$$ on nanotechnology to date, and has been researching it for quite some time. Making the US lightyears ahead of the likes of china and india.

Like I said nothing is written in stone yet.
One common misconception about china is, china is growing without debt. They are?? China’s funding gap for social security, medical care, pensions, etc. the whole lott, is the government’s debt. That is a problem china will sooner or later have to come to grips with. It wont be pretty either.

Personally I think India has the brightest future of the two. They will soon surpass china population wise, and they have a steady growth as well.

Surely something can be done, but who do you expect to do it? I do not wish for the US economy to crumble, nor do I stand to gain anything from it. It just seems to me that the US empire is in its final stages, and that's why it is relying on its military for short term goals.

China is far richer (in terms of monetary reserves and surpluses), more populated, and I would say more eager to excel (US is hybernating by comparison). Certainly something devastating can happen in China and reverse this cycle, and the US will again be on top. Now will US try to prevent China from reaching true superpower status (both militarily and economically), or will it focus on its own economy instead. Something tells me it's the former. You might not tie it in, but what US is doing in the Middle East might well have something to do with China.
And even if this doesn't have anything to do anything with economy, it is still troubling why the US is so eager to find new enemies, like Russia.

I really dont think the american ppl would have a hard time in living in a world with other superpowers. I dont think we would have a problem with being #2 or #3. I think the world would really benefit with so many other mega world powers. Especially if they worked together for the betterment of human civilization. But as long as there are ambitions to "be the best," we will constantly be at threat to one another. Its the sad and unfortunate way this world works today. Its survival of the fittest.

You bring up good points. However I wouldnt say the are more 'eager' to excel. Right now china is haveing a hard time. There is a massive syphilis out break going on right now in china. Now put other diseases such as aids which is sweeping across the chinese country side into the mix and you have a massive problem. How about the 700,000,000 chinese citizens who dont benefit off of the china boom? How about the estimated 300,000,000 who drink contaminated water? And India right now isnt much better off then china currently is. It would seem for the time being that both countries have a bright future. But its going to take alot more time then say the next 20-30 years for china and india to become megapowers like the US of today. And thats under the current 'status qou'. I think in the long run there population hurts them. Right now theres no doubt they wouldnt be where they are right now without there populations.

Personally I have a hard time trusting russia. They seem to be turning away from democracy which is a bit unsettleing to me. But this is nothing against the russian ppl. If anything they are the victims here.

I guess is what im saying is, I dont see anyone dethroning the US but the US itself. Which is always a possability I guess. Bad karma.

Originally posted by semperfoo
But if we werent in the current mess that we are in, I feel that we could focus more so on bettering the US economy, and at the same time bettering the world.

Why is the US in this "mess" in the first place? Because some politicians and corporation saw an opportunity to profit from these wars. Remember- most of the billions of dollars US spends on war in Iraq, go directly to domestic corporations. Thus I do not think the "mess" and the economy are mutually exclusive. They are interrelated, but the question is- do the economic benefits of the war really outweigh the negative effects.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Correct. However the US is spending the most $$$ on nanotechnology to date, and has been researching it for quite some time. Making the US lightyears ahead of the likes of china and india.

It matters little who leads the progress on R&D. It's like computers and programming- if corporations find it profitable, they will outsource even the newest technology overseas. Both China and India have far more college graduates with technology, engineering, and science degrees every year than US. Due to high R&D costs in the US, even that is moving overseas. Look at NASA, which is somewhat lagging compared even to Russian space program (total # of launches, and total mass put into orbit and on ISS), due to immense costs.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Like I said nothing is written in stone yet.
One common misconception about china is, china is growing without debt. They are?? China’s funding gap for social security, medical care, pensions, etc. the whole lott, is the government’s debt. That is a problem china will sooner or later have to come to grips with. It wont be pretty either.

Personally I think India has the brightest future of the two. They will soon surpass china population wise, and they have a steady growth as well.

Certainly China has some very major issues which need to be dealt with. But at least they do not need to be concerned with wars and foreign affairs like US is. Also they have monetary reserves in trillions of dollars. Although I agree that India is the real unnoticed contender, which goes mostly ignored on the world stage yet possesses immense potential.

This thread is about Russia however- and I do not see it becoming a true competitor against the US anytime soon. The population is quickly decreasing (one of very few countries in the world with dwindling population). It is focusing on economy, but can't possibly reach the level of China or US. Military spending is very low compared to both, and is clearly no longer a priority for Russia. But it doesn't mean that it can't become a major economic power in Europe, rivaling Germany (predicted that it will in the next decade).

Originally posted by semperfoo
I really dont think the american ppl would have a hard time in living in a world with other superpowers. I dont think we would have a problem with being #2 or #3.

I think you are very wrong here. It seems that completely the opposite is happening. US' goal in the Cold War, was not just to survive, but to root Soviet Union out, and become a sole superpower. It succeeded. And what did it do after USSR fell apart? Did it quit the military build-up and cease the race for world influence? -No, completely the opposite. It intensified its position, and continued the race with an immaginary enemy. Only now do we see that this enemy is taking shape in Asia. US has been concerned ever since the fall of USSR, about the posibility of another contender for superpower. And it will go to great lengths to prevent this from happening.

From what I can tell Americans like being #1. And who wouldn't- power is extremely addictive. No one who is in first place is interested in giving it up without a struggle, and there is nothing to suggest the US is any different.

Originally posted by semperfoo
I think the world would really benefit with so many other mega world powers. Especially if they worked together for the betterment of human civilization. But as long as there are ambitions to "be the best," we will constantly be at threat to one another. Its the sad and unfortunate way this world works today. Its survival of the fittest.

This is true, and I think much of the world would agree on this. The world would be more stable, and many conflicts would be prevented because of superpower alliences. However I don't think it's possible for superpowers to "work together", because alliances among strong powers have historically proven to be faulty.

Each superpower is primarily concerned with its own sphere of influence, and with limiting the sphere of others. This is but human nature. It's an unavoidable fact- which is why I completely understand what US is trying to do through its foreign policy, even if I disagree with it.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Personally I have a hard time trusting russia. They seem to be turning away from democracy which is a bit unsettleing to me. But this is nothing against the russian ppl. If anything they are the victims here.

Putin's seemingly centrist policies are only temporary- I assure you of this. He is trying to get Russia back under control, afer a decade of near anarchy under Yeltsin. During the 90's Russian economy was reduced to nothings, and it was being robbed out by oligarchs and foreign corporations (mostly energy). What Putin is doing, is necessary if the country is to have any future at all. No solid democracy is created instantly, and there is no reason to think Russian democracy will. Look at the US democracy- which was far far different at its onset than it is now- and even that's a work in progress. I would recommend to give Russia some time, and then judge their democracy. China is going through the change gradually, which Russia was treated with "shock therapy" (economy-wise), which hurt 90% of Russian population.

Putin is not interested in conquering anyone, or bringing back communism. He is interested in improving short term economic conditions in Russia, to pave way for long term democratic progress. No country in Western Europe or North America has experienced what Russia experienced in the 90's, so it's not up to them to judge it.


[edit on 15-1-2007 by maloy]

by maloy
Please enlighten us on what "political opposition" was assassinated in Russia. And I am not talking about some psycho two-bit disgruntled ex-spy in London who was reportedly fetching weapons for Chechens.

notice I didn't say political opposition but whatever you like, I was actually talking about the civilian reporters and journalist that get wacked for being anti putin.

stellar investment in a country has everything to do with influence because with influence comes confidence of investment, take a good look at the US, it's the financial capital of the world and the most heavily invested country in the world. of course you just going to post some prison planet article to try and refute as usual because you're to stubborn to understand fact.

if the US ever does collapse( which it wont) it saw to it the world economy would go with it.

take a good look at the poverty levels of india and china maloy, its real easy to pop out babies to contribute to population growth but when you have underdeveloped infrastructure on the level of china and india it will be hard to 'progress' unless you totally neglect it and live with the population gap, which no 'superpower' will do.

Originally posted by ape
notice I didn't say political opposition but whatever you like, I was actually talking about the civilian reporters and journalist that get wacked for being anti putin.

Somebody got wacked "for being" anti Putin? Or maybe somebody who is anti-Putin got wacked, so the Western media conveniently related them together. The few I can think of who were killed, have investigated organized crime and/or corruption on local government scale, and most likely this is what got them killed. So if they happened to be anti-Putin, it's automatically gets blamed on Putin... Brilliant- now who said Western media is unbiased?

There is a lot of opposition to Putin within Russia, and it is dumbfounded to assume Putin is out to get them. There are no facts to back this up, and nothing tying their death to Putin. And assumptions are nothing more than such, and should not figure into forming foreign policy decisions (such as labeling Russia an enemy or accusing Putin). There are many shady characters in Russia who can be responsible for the killings.

Originally posted by ape
stellar investment in a country has everything to do with influence because with influence comes confidence of investment, take a good look at the US, it's the financial capital of the world and the most heavily invested country in the world. of course you just going to post some prison planet article to try and refute as usual because you're to stubborn to understand fact.

Oh I understand the fact. I haven't argued against it either. US is on top of the world, and is living large. But trends change, and so do economies and one's status on a world stage. And there are multiple indication that such a change is starting to take place in respect to US economy. Wether China or India will take over in several decades, or whether US will come up with a new strategy to stay on top remains to be seen. All I am doing is speculating based on current events. I am well aware of the facts, and of American economy.

Originally posted by ape
if the US ever does collapse( which it wont) it saw to it the world economy would go with it.

It won't collapse most likely. Not in the historical sense of the word (like Soviet Union or Nazi Germany have collapsed). It could simply decrease in influence and no longer remain on top. Even if that doesn't happen soon, at some point it most likely will suffer a setback and decline. Simply stepping aside from first place could be tragic for certain Americans, and that is what I mean by crumble.

And even if the US takes the world down with them, it won't be for long. Other countries are bound to recover, and there would be little keeping them from recovering. Now if the US recovers is another story.

Originally posted by ape
take a good look at the poverty levels of india and china maloy, its real easy to pop out babies to contribute to population growth but when you have underdeveloped infrastructure on the level of china and india it will be hard to 'progress' unless you totally neglect it and live with the population gap, which no 'superpower' will do.

China is developing infrastructure at breaking pace. I am not arguing that a huge portion of the population (such as farmers and factory workers) is getting left behind, and is hardly content with that. And I am aware that this is only one of many major issues troubling China and India among others. Pollution, lack of energy resources, possible lack of food, overcorwded cities and hazardous living conditions, etc. Certainly before they outpace the US, these countries will have to solve these problems. But seeing how far China has come in the last 15 years, I believe they will find a solution.

A superpower isn't built in a day. Both US and USSR became superpowers quickly thanks to circumstances of WWII. European empires were created through wars and brutality. Can a potential superpower like China rise only with the help of its economy, and not its military? Quiet possibly this is why it's happening so gradually, but it is happening.



And I do understand antipathy towards China. But while antagonize Russia of all countries? You defeated Soviet Union (if through nothing else but an intense weapons race). Communism is no longer a problem. Russia is struggling with Wahabism just as the US is. Is China, Iran, NK, Venezuela and Cuba not enough for the time being? If US focuses too much on Russia, it would continue losing ground in South America, which is already building up to be a pretty sizable thorn in your side with the likes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Peru, and Bolivia.