Putin accuses U.S., NATO of reviving an 'arms race'

Originally posted by US Monitor
Seems like most people here forget that Putin is KGB trained and has his own plans of domination. He is playing the game to keep his powerbase by using the old standby of hating America to cause fear to keep power. Russia's problem is completely internal. Once their failed form of Govt. collapsed, they were taken over by criminals who made their way running the black market during the oppression of the USSR.

Seems like most people forget that Bush is CIA trained and has his own plans of domination. He is the one who's decided not to follow any treaties, when Russia did, and now surrounding Russia with their military bases, and trying to make a puppet gov in Ukraine, keep your hands away from Ukraine, I don't need some selfish and egoistic yankees trying to turn Ukraine and Russia into enemies. So sick of this bull.

reply to post by Odessit


if youre so sick of it, please do take your rant elsewhere. also, while you are telling others to get themselves checked out, you should check out your spelling.

Originally posted by Odessit

Originally posted by US Monitor
Seems like most people here forget that Putin is KGB trained and has his own plans of domination. He is playing the game to keep his powerbase by using the old standby of hating America to cause fear to keep power. Russia's problem is completely internal. Once their failed form of Govt. collapsed, they were taken over by criminals who made their way running the black market during the oppression of the USSR.

Seems like most people forget that Bush is CIA trained and has his own plans of domination. He is the one who's decided not to follow any treaties, when Russia did, and now surrounding Russia with their military bases, and trying to make a puppet gov in Ukraine, keep your hands away from Ukraine, I don't need some selfish and egoistic yankees trying to turn Ukraine and Russia into enemies. So sick of this bull.

W was never in the CIA, his Dad was. You don't know much do you?

Originally posted by US Monitor

Originally posted by Odessit

Originally posted by US Monitor
Seems like most people here forget that Putin is KGB trained and has his own plans of domination. He is playing the game to keep his powerbase by using the old standby of hating America to cause fear to keep power. Russia's problem is completely internal. Once their failed form of Govt. collapsed, they were taken over by criminals who made their way running the black market during the oppression of the USSR.

Seems like most people forget that Bush is CIA trained and has his own plans of domination. He is the one who's decided not to follow any treaties, when Russia did, and now surrounding Russia with their military bases, and trying to make a puppet gov in Ukraine, keep your hands away from Ukraine, I don't need some selfish and egoistic yankees trying to turn Ukraine and Russia into enemies. So sick of this bull.

W was never in the CIA, his Dad was. You don't know much do you?

Well then, shouldn't take much to understand the full concept , is it? He has the same mentality as his Dad.

Originally posted by wisefoolishness
reply to post by Odessit

 

if youre so sick of it, please do take your rant elsewhere. also, while you are telling others to get themselves checked out, you should check out your spelling.

Oh my , what is it again? You speak only english? well no surprise there.At least I have mentioned in other posts that English is not my 1st language, at least I know 5 languages, how many do you know? ONE, and that is a sad fact.

Originally posted by Odessit
Oh my , what is it again? You speak only english? well no surprise there.At least I have mentioned in other posts that English is not my 1st language, at least I know 5 languages, how many do you know? ONE, and that is a sad fact.

I'm just going to ask you one question Mr. Odessit. Why is it important for you to know 5 different languages? I am willing to bet its because if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to converse with a population that speaks multiple languages? (I am assuming you are from Europe)

Now here is the million dollar question. Tell me, why is it important for you to know English?

reply to post by Odessit


for your information , i can speak two languages other than english (not very well). sorry, i just happened to find it funny that you are telling people to get checked out for paranoia and you cant even spell it.

Originally posted by Odessit

Originally posted by US Monitor

Originally posted by Odessit

Originally posted by US Monitor
Seems like most people here forget that Putin is KGB trained and has his own plans of domination. He is playing the game to keep his powerbase by using the old standby of hating America to cause fear to keep power. Russia's problem is completely internal. Once their failed form of Govt. collapsed, they were taken over by criminals who made their way running the black market during the oppression of the USSR.

Seems like most people forget that Bush is CIA trained and has his own plans of domination. He is the one who's decided not to follow any treaties, when Russia did, and now surrounding Russia with their military bases, and trying to make a puppet gov in Ukraine, keep your hands away from Ukraine, I don't need some selfish and egoistic yankees trying to turn Ukraine and Russia into enemies. So sick of this bull.

W was never in the CIA, his Dad was. You don't know much do you?

Well then, shouldn't take much to understand the full concept , is it? He has the same mentality as his Dad.

So because his dad was in the CIA that means what? W inherited it?

reply to post by US Monitor


Bingo! I will bring you an example. If your father is a famous politician, wouldn't he want his son to follow his steps , that is why he will teach everything to his son , how the system works, what to do and what to do in certain situations. You get the point

reply to post by West Coast


Who said english is important to me? I went to foreign school outside Europe, in Seoul, South Korea, so I speak pretty good Korean. Well yes I am from Europe and so what? Don't tell me it is because all those countries are so close to each other, that is why people know the language.
People in Europe CHOOSE whether to learn a foreign language or not, I chose because I wanted to be somebody, and I am still learning languages. I lived in many countries, Italy where I was born, Ukraine, where I was raised, South Korea, where I went to school, so I've seen how things are in the world. Now I am in US , and I seen how people can be quite ignorant in US, making fun of kids who are foreigners and saying, oh America is this and that and we are BEST , but the reality most of them couldn't even locate a country on the map. "But we are best" GOD BLESS AMERICA

Originally posted by Odessit
reply to post by US Monitor

 

Bingo! I will bring you an example. If your father is a famous politician, wouldn't he want his son to follow his steps , that is why he will teach everything to his son , how the system works, what to do and what to do in certain situations. You get the point

Ok....so you are saying that because pops was CIA that somehow, someway the mere fact that W was born his son he magically gained all the knowledge and training that his daddy had from the CIA? EVEN THOUGH he NEVER worked a day in his life for the CIA? Wow what fantasy land do you live in?

Originally posted by Odessit
reply to post by West Coast

 

Who said english is important to me? I went to foreign school outside Europe, in Seoul, South Korea, so I speak pretty good Korean. Well yes I am from Europe and so what? Don't tell me it is because all those countries are so close to each other, that is why people know the language.

Allow me to "dumb it down" for you yet again!. If every US state spoke a different language, you would have to know your neighboring states language if you wanted to be successful. This is Europes case.

So, it is based off of necessity. Examples: Canada and Mexico are the two closest nations to America. Canada, which is just north to the US, is primarily an English speaking nation. To the south of the US, you have Mexico, which mainly speaks Espanol. Now, I should point out, that outside of Mexico, The United states is the second largest Spanish speaking nation. So again, I would argue that it is based off of necessity, especially in regards to your surroundings.

People in Europe CHOOSE whether to learn a foreign language or not,

If they want to be successful through business etc, they have to know several different languages. This is not always the case, but it is the main one.

I lived in many countries, Italy where I was born, Ukraine, where I was raised, South Korea, where I went to school, so I've seen how things are in the world.

Which brings me to my initial point in my previous post. you have had to know several different languages because you have had to. If you were born in Kansas, and moved to Missouri, California, New York, where ever..You wouldn't have to know a single language other than ENGLISH!

Now I am in US , and I seen how people can be quite ignorant in US, making fun of kids who are foreigners and saying, oh America is this and that and we are BEST , but the reality most of them couldn't even locate a country on the map. "But we are best" GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Well this is a stereotypical generalization. I am not saying that there are not ignorant people in this country, clearly there are. But having read many of your posts, that coming from you seems a bit..err.....hypocritical.

Anyways, I speak German and Spanish. But because you didn't bother to ask, and you just wanted to make a childish ass out of yourself, you clearly assumed more than you should have.

[edit on 16-2-2008 by West Coast]

[edit on 16-2-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by West Coast


thanks west coast, you gave me a good laugh, dumbing it down,
anyway, i agree with you, it does seem a bit hypocritical to talk down about someone who talks down upon others. oh yeah...Ich spreche deutsch!

Originally posted by West Coast
He is entitled to his opinion. But let us not forget, it is an opinion that isn’t well corroborated.

He happens to be a official historian of the US armed forces. I guess it's all about what people say and not who they are!

Iraq currently, is experiencing the fastest growing Economy in the world per Brookings report.

And you actually believe that type of nonsense? Do you have no shame at all? In terms of GDP that is actually possible but do you know that GDP growth means ALL expenditure and that this includes whatever it costs to dig graves, rebuild all the bombed schools, religious institutions, electricity generation, oil infrastructure, agricultural enterprise. Do you realise that the Iraqi economy grew much faster in the 60's and 70's before the US intervened to induce SH to fight Iran and invade countries with resulting sanctions? The Iraq's were not only economically better off under SH but they lived longer.

Why does this matter? I’m not sure, exactly what you are trying to get at. I’m questioning the integrity of the post in general.

I am pointing out that conscripts of any country do not much like fighting pointless wars against countries that never attacked theirs. Intestinal fortitude is ALWAYS lacking, irrespective of nationality, when you put soldiers in wars that makes no sense.

So are these the same fanatics who blow themselves up, killing innocent men, women, and children, in hopes of destabilizing their own country?

Some of them would be as they just can not find work and can't support their families. When said families then get blown to oblivion by a misdirected air strike or marines who employ dead checking methodologies i would not be surprised if some of them decides to risk their lives. What some people forget is that taking on modern war machine is pretty suicidal in itself unless you are suitable equipped and that suicide bombing may or may not be much of a added risk ( if one has intestinal fortitude) if one wishes to effectively attack the occupiers.

I talked to an Iraqi girl who lives in Iraq. She has helped US forces out by giving them valuable Intel. Despite the conflict, she believes Iraq has a brighter future with the fall of the Saddam Regime.

So she's arguable a traitor to her country? How does that qualify her to judge the situation in her country?

And what do you make of the fact that 77% are glad Saddam is gone (96% of Shiites and Kurds)?

No one disputes that the majority of Iraqi's are happy to see a end to SH but i suspect that that number will slowly decline over the years as Iraqi's meet capitalism and it's inherent exploitative practices. What you do not seem able to grasp is the fact that they wished to see the end of SH so that their might become more prosperous and have democracy and they got neither. As it stands they are happy but still waiting for the benefits that were supposed to come with having him gone.

Well that’s uninformed at its best.

That's what the UN says and i suggest you offer your own SOURCED claims when you wish to disregard mine.

GDP growth data in the Brookings report has Iraq as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. In 2006 It grew nearly 17%, while in 2007 it was projected to grow at nearly 14%.

You do not seem to have a understanding of what GDP means.

findarticles.com...

I calculated total spending in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (based on gross revenue figures from the Internal Revenue Service). By this measure, which I have dubbed Gross Domestic Expenditures, or GDE, consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy. Business investment, including intermediate output, represents more than 50 percent of the economy.

Thus, the truth is the opposite of the conventional wisdom: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.

This truth prevails in the marketplace: It's supply – not demand – that drives the economy. Productivity and saving are the keys to economic growth.

www.csmonitor.com...

So there you have it. It's not personal wealth or consumer spending that matters but how much money is shifted between corporations. That's what they really mean by GDP and that's why the number is not specifically useful when it comes to indicating how people actually live.

In any event, Iraq is already more prosperous than at any point since Saddam's war with Iran (beginning 1980). Please be sure you are blaming Saddam in addition to the sanctions against him.

Iraq is NOT more prosperous than it used to be in either the 90's or 80's ( and certainly not comparatively to the world in the 70's) and you have not supplied anything that contradicts the sources i used. I understand that you may not want to trust the UN ( evil organization and everything) but you really need to give at some some type of source for your opinions.

The blame the US national security state for the sanctions against Iraq as SH and his regime were in fact in compliance with the UN mandates and treates ( a hundred times more so than Israel) and hard fundamentally disarmed and were allowing weapon inspectors to monitor all facilities that could remotely have to do with strategic weapons production. SH were not responsible for the continuing sanctions ( the US kept them in place because they wanted SH out of power; not something the UN ever gave them a mandate for) and he was most certainly not responsible for the dire effects it had on the Iraqi population. That being said he deserves what he got for all the other crimes he did commit against his people and the people's of other countries.

Iraq is a democracy, all be it a young, struggling democracy. Is this somehow coming off as news to you?

Since the election were not democratic and large sections of the Iraqi population did not vote it was NOT democratic and few in actual western world believes that it is. Once again i have given sources but you just ignored them and just went on claiming what you did without any evidence.

Regardless of your anti American rhetoric, there were elections held, there were Iraqis, as well as Afghanis (which saw record turnouts) who voted for their representatives.

Record turnouts while entire Iraqi' provinces and cities were under seige? Are you kidding me or are you just trying to kid those who have done as little reading and thinking as yourself? This is not anti American rhetoric but anti-ignorant rhetoric and if you believe that applies to your free to feel suitably insulted.

It doesn’t change the SIMPLE fact that it is STILL considered a democracy! They are free to do as they wish, to buy whatever they want, etc. Why you continue to ignore the obvious is beyond me.

The process were not democratic and the results were most certainly not. To maintain that a undemocratic process yielded democratic results is to put the cart in front of the horse without having to actually try to work with the resulting inefficient mess. Iraqi's are not free to do what they wish as they might get blown up for walking in the wrong place or arrested and tortured for saying the wrong things. Iraqi's are not free to buy what they want as 40% or more of the adult population do not have jobs to earn a living with. The reason i continue to disagree with you is because you do not even the slightest idea of what your talking about and are misrepresenting this issue to hide the fact that it's just one big crime against humanity, and more specifically, Iraqi's.

Ask the Pentagon..
Perhaps the US doesn’t feel the need to continue to waste money on something they feel is obsolete.

That must be why they retired their most modern land based ICBM the Peacekeeper and while you might not see the irony in that you might already be experiencing that absence of peace.

First of all, the link does not work, and how did you come to the terms of it being “not true”.

It does not matter if the link works or not as you can and should still address the claims unless you wish to call me a liar so that i may go find the page in my archive and restate the question. It came the the conclusion that it was a lie because the US did have a perfectly viable ABM defense system back in the day ( in some respects even before the USSR) but that it was dismantled because the policy makers at the time decided that it was not 'efficient' to defend the American public and save a few tens of millions of lives. Based on that and further reading it has become abundantly obvious to me that the US government has never had a serious interest in defending it's citizens while the USSR proceeded to do it's best to do so throughout the cold war and to this very day.

Conitnued

According to Mr. Rostow's memo, the Chiefs recommended MIKE-X deployment at 25 cities to save the lives of 30 to 50 million U.S. citizens, if attacked. McMamara opposed the Chiefs' proposal on the grounds of MAD theology and simplistic "action-reaction":

* it was "inconceivable" that the Soviets would react in any other way but to restore the status quo ante, i.e. 120 million U.S. population fatalities;
* both sides would spend a lot of money and end up where they started, but we would waste the most because offensive weapons were so much cheaper than ABM systems;
* the danger of war would not be reduced;
* the FSU had "been wrong in its nuclear defense policy for a decade" because everything spent on all types of defenses (air and missile) had been wasted.(15)

The Chiefs saw it quite differently:

* NIKE-X would save tens of millions of lives against a Soviet population attack, and that was a worthwhile objective;
* while they could not predict with confidence how the Soviets would react, all likely reactions had a substantial price and would divert funds from other military programs--no free lunches;
* the risk of nuclear attack would be reduced

www.fas.org...

Please do feel free to provide credible sources that actually validate your claims, ones that actually work..

If only one of the sources links did not work and i am wondering why you did not at least address the second one. Here is a few more so it can't be said that i am shirking my sourcing responsibilities.

*The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

* G.V. Kisun'ko, the chief designer of the ABM systems developed or deployed around Moscow for more than three decades, confirms in a 1996 memoir that large Hen House and Dog House radars at Sary Shagan were designed as battle-management radars for the early Soviet ABM system for the defense of Moscow. Kisun'ko also stated that the SA-5 was designed as a dual-purpose SAM/ABM in conjunction with the Hen House radars.

* B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year.

www.findarticles.com...

This new evidence reinforces longstanding concerns about systematic Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty. Battlefield management radars are
the long leadtime component of any ABM defense system and the Soviets seem to have gained a great deal of experience in this field since 1975 when they installed an ABM-X-3 radar in the Kamchatka impact area for their ICBM tests. Over the years, the Soviets have also been upgrading their surface-to-air (SAM) bomber defense systems--now presumed to perform an ABM role. Since the Carter Administration, the Soviets repeatedly have tested various types of SAM missiles in'a discernable ABM mode at altitudes above 100,000 feet and have deployed thousands of less capable SA-5 missiles around-Soviet cities. These illegal ABM activities and the development of an anti-tactical ballistic missle system clearly point to a Soviet decision to subvert the ABM Treaty shortly after signing it.

Refusals to acknowledge these Soviet treaty violations point to the perennial dilemma of what to do after detecting cheating. The Administra-. tion is doingitself and the country no favor by refusing to acknowledge the mounting evidence that the Soviets are developing a capability which seriously erodes strategic stability and will soon permit the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty. The Administration should document and publicize Soviet ABM activities and Treaty violations. It should accele- rate the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BDM) program. Unless Moscow can refute the evidence that its radar and weapons programs are not de- signed for an ABM role, the U.S. should abrogate the ABM Treaty.

www.heritage.org...

Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com/node/1076

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.

Joseph Arminio, chairman of the National Coalition for Defense, states:
Not only did the U.S.S.R., unlike the U.S., deploy the one missile defense
permitted by the treaty, ringing Moscow with the 100 interceptors
sanctioned by law. It also littered about Soviet territory with another
10,000 to 12,000 interceptors, and 18 battle-management radars. Together
the Moscow defense and the vast homeland defense formed an interlocking
system—nearly all of it illicit.10

The “10,000 to 12,000 interceptors” to which Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1

www.cato.org...

The missile troops are equipped with about 150 SA-2 Guideline, 100 SA-3 Goa, 500 SA-5 Gammon, and 1,750 SA-10 Grumble missile launchers. A program to replace all of the older systems with the SA-10, well under way by 1996, has been considered by experts to be one of the most successful reequipment programs of the post-Soviet armed forces. Seven of the military districts have at least one aviation air defense regiment each; two districts, Moscow and the Far Eastern, have specially designated air defense districts.

The borders of the Moscow Air Defense District are the same as those of the Moscow Military District. The Far Eastern Air Defense District combines the territory of the Far Eastern Military District and the Transbaikal Military District. Presumably, the boundaries of the other military districts are the same for air defense as for other defense designations.

Data as of July 1996

www.country-data.com...

By the time the Empire collapsed, more than 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABM interceptor missiles were deployed at SA-5/10 complexes. Yet the U.S. officially counts only the l00 interceptors of the "ABM X-3" system at Moscow, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. ABM X-3 is a scaled up model of the NIKE-X system, vintage late

www.fas.org...

If some pages were removed/moved in the last few years just address the rest.

Continued

That is interesting. It seems that Russia (understandably so) chose to go the nuclear way, because they knew they could not hope to keep up with US conventional forces. But relying solely on that nuclear option is dangerous.

Actually i would say that they simply had no plans to invade third world nations and though that they could always exploit such US adventures to take their chances elsewhere. It's not that the USSR/Russian federation can not win a conventional war but that they would be the defending side ( by necessity given the lack of public support for aggressive actions) who would have always gone nuclear. Relying on nuclear weapons is only dangerous when you wish to attack others countries and are worried about your response; it's perfectly suitable as a way to ward off aggression.

I do agree, with your assessment to a degree, stellar. Under Clinton, he did favor sticking with the treaties, this, however, has all changed under GW Bush. Space based defenses are what America is and has been working on, in the form of an ABM for the bare minimum of the past 8-9 years. Missile defense also receives loads of money in the form of funding.

Clinton disarmed the US and such processes has been continued under W by his insistence on squandering us resources on fighting wars that are destroying the US conventional force projection capabilities. If you think the war in Iraq has been hard on US soldiers you should check what it has done to it's equipment and fighting systems in general! I agree that the US may have redoubled it's efforts to fight effective into and from space but i also happen to believe that the USSR/RF has held the high ground for a few decades now. To get them out of it at this stage is not going to be easy if at all possible.

The nuclear window is closing for Russia however. With breakthroughs advancements in US missile defense systems, and spaces forces such as FALCON and SUSTAIN, it is only a matter of time till the nuclear option, in itself, becomes obsolete for the “mother land” (along with the rest of its conventional forces).

And yet no one makes that argument when the US nuclear arsenal has long been negated by the active and passive defenses of the USSR/RF... Why don't you mention that rather than assume the US efforts to catch is evidence that it's gaining supremacy? It just shows you how easy it is for us to believe exactly as we like and it's one of the reason why i do my best to at least involve a whole host of sources! I might obviously still be wrong but at least you can see where i am getting my information from while others can wonder where you are pulling yours from.

Management Agency (FEMA), the Soviets have built at least 20,000
blast-resistant shelters to protect approximately 15 million people, or
roughly 10 percent of the people in cities of 25,000 or more. The FY 1981
Department of Defense Annual Report to the Congress noted that
"the Soviets will probably continue to emphasize the construction of
urban blast sheltering. If the current pace of construction is continued,
the number of people that can be sheltered will be roughly doubled in
1988." The Soviets apparently plan to evacuate and disperse the general
population to pre-assigned resettlement areas where they will be fed
and either provided with a fallout shelter or put to work building one.

According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions indicate that Soviet civil defense

www.tfxib.com...

Soviet Union. The role civil defense plays in Soviet strategy is significant. Based on the view that nuclear war is a clear possibility and that civilization is protectable, the Soviets have implemented a massive and thoroughly integrated civil defense effort.22 Soviet leaders have shown interest in civil defense for many years, but they enhanced their efforts following the 23rd Party Congress in 1966. Despite SALT I agreements in 1972, the U.S.S.R. further intensified its civil defense program. CD currently ranks as a separate force organizationally equal to other Ministry of Defense Forces. The CD chief, General of the Army Altunin (four-star rank), is also Deputy Minister of Defense with three CD deputies of colonel-general (three star) rank serving under him. A Stanford Research Institute (SRI) study23 in 1974 stated that there were at least 35 to 40 active list Soviet army general officers holding posts in the Soviet CD system, which is intricately organized in the 15 constituent republics of the U.S.S.R. The SRI report mentioned a three-year CD military officer candidate school that might indicate the Soviet interest in a continuing civil defense program.

The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25

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

In contrast to the U.S.'s desultory interest in civil defense, the Soviet Union is well advanced on a thoroughgoing program to protect its people against nuclear attack. The Soviet government has built shelters by the thousands and organized elaborate training programs, reported the Rand Corp.'s Leon Gouré, leading U.S. authority on Soviet civil defense, at a civil defense conference last week at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The Soviet civil defense effort is expanding steadily on a compulsory basis. "Once the Soviet government makes a decision of this sort," said Gouré, "it does not have to ask for public support or popular approval." Under directives from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, all units right down to collective farms and apartment houses are required to organize so-called volunteer self-defense groups consisting of 48 trained fire fighters, shelter attendants and first-aid workers for every 500 residents. A claimed 22 million Soviet citizens—10% of the whole population-serve in these formations. Since 1955, these units have carried through three compulsory training courses for all citizens. This winter, says Gouré, the Soviet Union is giving every urban citizen between the ages of 16 and 55 an 18-hour course in how to protect himself against nuclear attack and how to behave in shelters. "Soviet shelter facilities," says Gouré, "are the most extensive anywhere." They range from concrete installations in every factory to the root cellar under every peasant hut.

www.time.com...

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...

So its just made up? Then why has the US spent billions of dollars to help aid russias wasting away nuclear stockpile?

Because in my opinion , which i believe i can defend with plenty of sources, Russia was by the mid 80's into a position to blackmail the US into dismantling it's weapons while it spent some of those funds as well as it's own on newer weapons. Since you could not possibly entertain that notion you will just have to work on the presumption that the USSR were bankrupt and ignore the fact that it was in fact deploying new strategic weapons while the US spent relatively large volumes of cash destroying older one's!

Continued

As if the two are exclusive? Regardless, it is being spent, and as it is the US who is the one doing it, it hardly matters. Or do we need to understand how economics in today’s world works?

Yes you do need to understand how modern economic work if you wish to understand how the US regime can keep spending money it just does not have. Beside the fact that the fed really can just create money out of thin air it does still require other countries to accept such money for transactions and that is NOT something they have to keep doing for all eternity. It is simply not a given that this system will be maintained in the face of fast declining capabilities of the US armed forces.

America gets away with having such a deficit because others buy up its debt, they do this so the American consumer can continue to buy their items, thus making them more money.

And these others buy up the debt largely because they are run by American interests, puppets or owe the security of their regimes to the US government. The people of the countries rarely has or had a say in how badly their money is being invested ( far better opportunities elsewhere) and it would change if the people of various countries could gain truly Democratic results in their country in the same way it would change if the US could no longer hold so many countries hostage with the threat of violence.

Without the American consumer buying all their crap, they aren’t experiencing
the same GDP growth.

Actually they could just take the money they are loaning to the US banks and government and give it to their own banks to loan to their own people hence giving their people purchasing power. If you had actually done a cursory study of basic economics you could have figured this out but instead you have chosen to just believe everything the corporate owned American media wants you to believe. The fact that you really think the world needs 280 odd million Americans to be their sole consuming class says much for how easily ignorant people can be propagandized into believing rubbish.

We can also do what so many other countries have done and that is just nationalize all foreign investments and disregard any foreign debts for it all to disappear over night.

Sure you could but since the US economy seems to be entirely dependent on a continuously flow of investment from the rest of the world such a action will require a great deal of violence and intimidation to organize and maintain.

The world needs America, but America does not need the world. The world is purely just a convenience to America since it is America that is the breadbasket of the world…

The world does not need America but since the USA has so much conventional firepower and resources to invest in suppressing popular movements nearly everywhere the people of the world are finding it hard to get this particular monkey of our collective backs. Since Americans are largely unaware ( they have been told that we need the help and are mostly just too stupid to run things our own way) of what is being done to the people of the world this system is bound to be undone as access to information increases and the levels of violence and propaganda would just have to increase massively to keep things running the way the US national security state finds to be most beneficial to them.

When the citizens of America finds out that they are not in fact benefiting by their non-empire and help that rarely turns out to be help the show will quickly be over and that's why we must keep on trying to discuss these matters so that people like you might become less ignorant of what your unelected president does in your name.

Stellar

West Coast, The World needs America I dont think so, no you need us and you need us bad. You know when you yanks say your in the bubble and the rest of us are not, well your dead right you are in a bubble. A bubble that is being starved of oxygen, a nation of people who dont travel, a nation in debt kept afloat by foreign banks who own your ass.

A nation tearing itself apart while the rich and parasites rob you blind, failing health care, education, mass murder on the streets, Fascism everywhere oh yes I'm really envious of not living there.

And if the US ever wanted to go head to head with Russia or China it would be you getting bombed back to the stone age, keep on being delluded, ignorant and arrogant and see how long it will last, I can understand someone being patriotict but to deny reality is just ridiculous, what are you going to do when the truth hits home, go crying to your mummy.

Your whole existance is a play being watched in a locked theatre, the audience totally unaware of whats going on outside, and totally believing of the show being played out.

reply to post by magicmushroom



Wow one of the dumber posts I have ever seen here. You keep on telling yourself that the World doesn't need the US.

reply to post by StellarX


Would you please stop quoting everything someone says? I don't dis-like reading your post but I'm not about to read all that babel. Really you do it all the time and it gets annoying.