Russian Nuclear Threat to Poland?

[editec]

I guess some people are too young to remember, or they slept through US History Class.

Of course Russia has anti-ballistic missles. That was part of the ABM (anti-ballistic missle) treaty Nixon signed in 1972. Its one of the most famous arms control agreements in history. Each side was allowed to maintain a small force (100 I think) of anti-ballistic missles. The soviets had a small force of ABM missles around Moscow for since the 1960s. We were allowed to have a small force of ABM missles, in accordance with the treaty, but I don't know if we ever deployed it.

Yup!

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Does anyone here read the papers? That was a big deal. Because the ABM treaty limited both sides from developing ABM systems, and Bush wanted his fancy, unworkable star wars program to feed money to defense contractors.

Right again.

And by putting these systems in foreign nations, (at American taxpayers expense, if these nations want to PAY for this stuff, that's another matter) Bush continues to effectively transfer enormous wealth from the American taxpayers (or whomsoever is lending our government enough money to do these things) to his chums in the military industrial complex.

Coincidently, and I suspect unhappily, he ALSO baits the bear that never needs baiting.

Russia is STILL a dangerous nation, folks, Just as dangerous and as imperialistic as it ever was.

And I do NOT think ABM technology makes any or Eureope of us safer from the Ruskies.

What I DO think would make EUROPE safer is if they built up their own conventianal forces.

They need to make it clear to Russia that they will not tolerate its obvious plans to intimidate them, one nation at a time, until it has reconsituted its former Soviet block satillites.

If the Soviet tanks came rolling into Prague, or Warsaw, American (and Euopean, too, I suspect) convention forces are too weak to do much about it.

Europe has to defend itself, and these missles aren't going to help EUROPE or the USA.

If anything they will make matters worse.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yup!



Right again.

And by putting these systems in foreign nations, (at American taxpayers expense, if these nations want to PAY for this stuff, that's another matter) Bush continues to effectively transfer enormous wealth from the American taxpayers (or whomsoever is lending our government enough money to do these things) to his chums in the military industrial complex.

Coincidently, and I suspect unhappily, he ALSO baits the bear that never needs baiting.

Russia is STILL a dangerous nation, folks, Just as dangerous and as imperialistic as it ever was.

And I do NOT think ABM technology makes any or Eureope of us safer from the Ruskies.

What I DO think would make EUROPE safer is if they built up their own conventianal forces.

They need to make it clear to Russia that they will not tolerate its obvious plans to intimidate them, one nation at a time, until it has reconsituted its former Soviet block satillites.

If the Soviet tanks came rolling into Prague, or Warsaw, American (and Euopean, too, I suspect) convention forces are too weak to do much about it.

Europe has to defend itself, and these missles aren't going to help EUROPE or the USA.

If anything they will make matters worse.

I agree with most of this, except about the threat of Russia being able to take over europe.

I don't think Eastern Europe is ever going to accept russian military occupation again. There isn't a Warsaw Pact anymore, where the eastern european nations are intentionally kept weak by the russians, and the russians have a garrison of half a million troops on their soils.

Also, the russian army has never been effective at invading other nations. They're quite good at defending their homeland, as Hitler found out. But the vaunted Red Army couldn't even control a stone age country like afghanistan, and the russian army spent years getting their assess kicked in a small breakaway republic in Chechnya. The strength and ability of the russian army to blitzkrieg other nations and dominate them has always been over rated, in my opinion.

I actually think its a matter of historical fact, that the prowess of the russian military has been over rated by many in the U.S. to justify continuing massive expenditures on defense contractors and the military industrial complex. I think even Eisenhower alluded to this.

 

[Moon]

Learn to read.

I said the Army is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The active US Army is only around half a million, from what I understand.

For the conservatives here who want to go to war with russia, here's a tip. We're not going to win a war in land-locked Georgia with the US Navy, the California National Guard, or the US Airforce.

The Army is what is used to fight and win wars.

Bogged down? We're preparing to withdraw our troops from Iraq, and the number there is down 30,000 from just a few months ago. I didn't know that winning a war was considered being bogged down. Oh, and I'm sure you know there's a lot more to the Army than just the active duty component, right? Plus the Marines have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they're more than capable of seizing and holding enemy real estate.

Personally, I don't want to go to war with Russia, but I also don't think we should abandon an ally, just because defending them would be difficult. I've seen where some on the left are concerned about how the rest of the world sees America. I'm surprised they don't view leaving an ally alone to face aggression like what Russia's demonstrated as being a negative thing in the view of the world.

 

[editec]

I agree with most of this, except about the threat of Russia being able to take over europe.

Well I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I admit that I am not especially versed in the current state of readiness of Euopean nations.

I don't think Eastern Europe is ever going to accept russian military occupation again. There isn't a Warsaw Pact anymore, where the eastern european nations are intentionally kept weak by the russians, and the russians have a garrison of half a million troops on their soils.

I don't think they ever ACCEPTED it, they just didn't have any choice but to deal with it.

Also, the russian army has never been effective at invading other nations. They're quite good at defending their homeland, as Hitler found out. But the vaunted Red Army couldn't even control a stone age country like afghanistan,

Posh!...neither can we, obviously

and the russian army spent years getting their assess kicked in a small breakaway republic in Chechnya. The strength and ability of the russian army to blitzkrieg other nations and dominate them has always been over rated, in my opinion.

No, their ability to defeat other nations military, much like ours, is quite dramtic. It's the occupation and winning hearts and wins (again much like us) where they suck.

I actually think its a matter of historical fact, that the prowess of the russian military has been over rated by many in the U.S. to justify continuing massive expenditures on defense contractors and the military industrial complex. I think even Eisenhower alluded to this.

I think you're dead wrong about that, to be honest.

Russias industrial capacity to create weapons for war has ALWAYS been rather vast.

It was for WWI, WWII and during the cold war years, too.

And yes, of this I actually do have a fairly good grasp, my friend.

The delusion that Russia's industrial capacity is weak, is simply not supported by the statistics of what they have produced in war material in the last century.

Russia didn't depend on the USA for much war material during WWII.

That canard continues to pass as fact, but the historical statistics do not support it.

 

[Bootneck]

Learn to read.

For the conservatives here who want to go to war with russia, here's a tip. We're not going to win a war in land-locked Georgia with the US Navy, the California National Guard, or the US Airforce.

The Army is what is used to fight and win wars.

Actually, the US Navy could win a war in Georgia. The marines are navy, not army! Apart from that, Georgia is not landlocked. It has coastline on the Black Sea

 

[Annie]

Good cause to think it's better to be serious now, than later. Russia learned these lessons, I'm sure:

Winning: Hidden Victories In Georgia

Hidden Victories In Georgia

August 17, 2008: Russian troops beat the Georgians on the ground, not so much because of superior numbers, but because the Russians had more troops with combat experience, and very recent experience in fighting this kind of war. The Russians got this way by fighting a successful campaign just across the border, in Chechnya. There, several hundred thousand Russians and pro-Russian Chechens have gotten valuable combat experience. The Chechen rebels (a mixture of nationalists, gangsters and Islamic radicals) have been reduced to a few hundred hard core fighters. The Russians basically use Chechnya as a training ground where their "contract soldiers" (volunteers, who are much more effective than conscripts) can get some combat experience. These volunteers are particularly common in paratrooper and commando units. Both were apparently used in the ground operations that pushed the Georgians out of South Ossetia, and conquered key areas elsewhere in Georgia. Some of the "Russian" troops were apparently Chechen paramilitary units.

The Georgian troops had received training and weapons from the U.S. and Israel over the last few years. But the U.S. training was mainly for peacekeeping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was of limited use against experienced Russian counter-terrorism troops. A small number of Georgians received special operations training, but not enough of these troops were available to defeat the Russian advance.

The Georgians did better in the air and at sea, even though they were greatly outnumbered there as well. Georgian warplanes shot up the Russians pretty badly (killing the commander of Russian ground forces, for example) before the Russians were able to shut down the Georgian air force. But in the process Russia lost at least four aircraft destroyed, and a number of others badly damaged.

At sea, Georgian missile boats hit several Russian warships, which had not been equipped with equipment, or crews, that were capable of dealing with this kind of threat. Two Russian warships were damaged sufficiently that they had to withdraw from the area. Within a few days, however, Georgia's miniscule navy and air force were destroyed, largely by the much larger Russian air force.

The Russians ran a large scale Information War campaign, shutting down Georgian access to the Internet for several days, and blanketing the world media, and Internet, with Russian spin on what was going on in Georgia and why.

The Russians apparently wanted to intimidate the Georgians into electing a less pro-West government. There are some Georgians who are more inclined to do whatever the Russians want, but it's unclear if this faction has a majority of the votes yet. Some Georgians believe that the Russians are still angry about Josef Stalin, a Georgian who killed more Russians than Adolf Hitler. Stalin is still a hero to Georgians.

Russia has now shown itself to be a bully. Russia has been trying to annex two parts of Georgia that border Russia, and this war was all about showing Georgians that Russia would rather fight than give up this land grab. The UN was created to deal with this sort of thing, but Russia is doing well, so far, intimidating the UN into inactivity.

It's not a clear win for the Russians, but, short-term, many things appear to be going their way. Long term, things are rather more murky. Europeans have been reminded that the Russian bully they have feared and despised, for so many centuries, is back in town. That could have interesting consequences down the road.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually, the US Navy could win a war in Georgia. The marines are navy, not army! Apart from that, Georgia is not landlocked. It has coastline on the Black Sea

If you want to think the U.S., at this point, could engage Russia in a conventional war on or near their home turf, and win, your welcome to that opinion.

I listen to the military experts, not to message board arm chair generals.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers.

Officers: U.S. military stretched 'dangerously thin' - CNN.com

 

[Annie]

If you want to think the U.S., at this point, could engage Russia in a conventional war on or near their home turf, and win, your welcome to that opinion.

I listen to the military experts, not to message board arm chair generals.

Like those that write for Stategy Page?

 

[Red Dawn]

Like those that write for Stategy Page?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is that some rightwing blog?

Sorry, I can't waste anymore time on people who want to go to war with russia, and who think we can win a conventional war by taking them on in central asia on or near their home turf.

Too much war mongering for my taste. Isn't the Iraq War enough for you?

 

[DiveCon]

Learn to read.

I said the Army is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The active US Army is only around half a million, from what I understand.

For the conservatives here who want to go to war with russia, here's a tip. We're not going to win a war in land-locked Georgia with the US Navy, the California National Guard, or the US Airforce.

The Army is what is used to fight and win wars.

you need to learn to read


the Army isnt "bogged down" anywhere
not all the troops in Iraq are Army in the first place, and even if they were, 140k isnt 500k



and Georgia isnt land locked either
learn geography

 

[DiveCon]

If you want to think the U.S., at this point, could engage Russia in a conventional war on or near their home turf, and win, your welcome to that opinion.

I listen to the military experts, not to message board arm chair generals.

other than the headline, that DOESNT say what you think it does

 

[Bootneck]

If you want to think the U.S., at this point, could engage Russia in a conventional war on or near their home turf, and win, your welcome to that opinion.

I listen to the military experts, not to message board arm chair generals.

Never said that. Just pointing out that you don't know your navy from your army.

Haven't quite made armchair general yet. Still only a lowly lieutenant, Royal Marine Commandos. How about your armchair? Comfortable is it?

 

[Article 15]

art, have you been out of touch for a couple years?
this has been in planning stages for at least 2 years

Out of touch on this issue ... ayup ... I know ... sometimes I pipe up when I should be paying attention or doing some research ... meh ... we all have flaws.

you need to learn to read


the Army isnt "bogged down" anywhere
not all the troops in Iraq are Army in the first place, and even if they were, 140k isnt 500k

But we definitely have an elasticity problem ... "Army stretched too thin" has been echoed by Casey, Powell ... hell even Sec. Gates acknowledges it ... it's a matter of semantics ... that is unless we implement a draft ... I'd hate to see how that would blow over.

and Georgia isnt land locked either
learn geography

 

[Red Dawn]

Never said that. Just pointing out that you don't know your navy from your army.

Haven't quite made armchair general yet. Still only a lowly lieutenant, Royal Marine Commandos. How about your armchair? Comfortable is it?

Yeah, its amazing how many people in cyberspace are marines, commandos, Vietnam vets, special forces, combat vets.

I don't know what your point is. I said our army is stretched too thin to mount a conventional war on russia in central asia. I was correct. I think you (or whoever) were the ones that transponsed the word Army, with the word military.

At any rate, It would be beyond foolhardy. Colin Powell, SecDef Gates, most Generals, the Joint Chiefs, and most military officers would agree with me.

their opinions are more credible, over the opinions of message board posters.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah, its amazing how many people in cyberspace are marines, commandos, Vietnam vets, special forces, combat vets.

I don't know what your point is. I said our army is stretched too thin to mount a conventional war on russia in central asia. I was correct. I think you (or whoever) were the ones that transponsed the word Army, with the word military.

At any rate, It would be beyond foolhardy. Colin Powell, SecDef Gates, most Generals, the Joint Chiefs, and most military officers would agree with me.

their opinions are more credible, over the opinions of message board posters.

being "stretched thin" is not "bogged down"

 

[dilloduck]

I said our army is stretched too thin to mount a conventional war on russia in central asia. I was correct.

Perhaps it's a damn good thing we were.

 

[Red Dawn]

you need to learn to read


the Army isnt "bogged down" anywhere
not all the troops in Iraq are Army in the first place, and even if they were, 140k isnt 500k



and Georgia isnt land locked either
learn geography

Apparently, you don't seem to understand how the army works, or understand current US military posture.

Do you really think that only 150k of the Army serves in Iraq, and somehow the rest of the Army is free to go fight your war in Central Asia against russia?

You do realize that those 150k troops in Iraq are there on a temporary 12 month rotation, and that most of the rest of the army is either in the process of mobilizing to go to Iraq, or demobilizing from coming back from Iraq? This is why most members of the army have served at least one or two tours in Iraq.

Which means, if you want to keep fighting your war in Iraq, and launch a war in central asia against russia, you have two choices.

1) Tell the 150k troops in Iraq that their 12 month tour has been canceled, and they will have to stay permanently while the rest of the army is sent to central asia to fight your second war.

2) Have a military draft. Because the russians will not take kindly to an american expeditionary force landing in Georgia. Guaranteed. They will throw everything they have at us, to drive us into the sea. It will be total war.


Please don't bring up the guard and reserves. I really don't think you want to start a total war in Russian using National Guard and Reserve troops. I don't think the California National Guard, or some weekend warriors from Ohio were really intended or designed to launch an invasion of central asia against the russian army.


You won't find a four star general in the United States Army that agrees with you, that we are at the operational and manpower capacity to wage your war on russia on their home turf of central asia.

That's why this conversation is ridiculous. You have to admit, it really is nothing more than the fanciful musings of a bunch of boys playing armchair general.

 

[Bootneck]

Yeah, its amazing how many people in cyberspace are marines, commandos, Vietnam vets, special forces, combat vets.

I don't know what your point is. I said our army is stretched too thin to mount a conventional war on russia in central asia. I was correct. I think you (or whoever) were the ones that transponsed the word Army, with the word military.

Simple old chap. You said the navy couldn't have any effect in Georgia. I simply pointed out that it could, since marines are navy...get it yet? They do not come under the governance of the US army.

You also seem to think that Georgia is landlocked. It ain't.

As for my views on whether the US could win such a war...pay attention! I haven't opined any!!!! Just couldn't resist the the temptation to fill in your basic knowledge gaps about the various miltary services and geography.

At any rate, It would be beyond foolhardy. Colin Powell, SecDef Gates, most Generals, the Joint Chiefs, and most military officers would agree with me.

Wow! You must be some big cheese to have Colin Powell, SecDef Gates, most Generals, the Joint Chiefs, and most military officers agreeing with YOU

 

[Annie]

Simple old chap. You said the navy couldn't have any effect in Georgia. I simply pointed out that it could, since marines are navy...get it yet? They do not come under the governance of the US army.

You also seem to think that Georgia is landlocked. It ain't.

As for my views on whether the US could win such a war...pay attention! I haven't opined any!!!! Just couldn't resist the the temptation to fill in your basic knowledge gaps about the various miltary services and geography.



Wow! You must be some big cheese to have Colin Powell, SecDef Gates, most Generals, the Joint Chiefs, and most military officers agreeing with YOU

Damn, wish I could rep you!

 

[DiveCon]

Apparently, you don't seem to understand how the army works, or understand current US military posture.

Do you really think that only 150k of the Army serves in Iraq, and somehow the rest of the Army is free to go fight your war in Central Asia against russia?

You do realize that those 150k troops in Iraq are there on a temporary 12 month rotation, and that most of the rest of the army is either in the process of mobilizing to go to Iraq, or demobilizing from coming back from Iraq? This is why most members of the army have served at least one or two tours in Iraq.

Which means, if you want to keep fighting your war in Iraq, and launch a war in central asia against russia, you have two choices.

1) Tell the 150k troops in Iraq that their 12 month tour has been canceled, and they will have to stay permanently while the rest of the army is sent to central asia to fight your second war.

2) Have a military draft. Because the russians will not take kindly to an american expeditionary force landing in Georgia. Guaranteed. They will throw everything they have at us, to drive us into the sea. It will be total war.


Please don't bring up the guard and reserves. I really don't think you want to start a total war in Russian using National Guard and Reserve troops. I don't think the California National Guard, or some weekend warriors from Ohio were really intended or designed to launch an invasion of central asia against the russian army.


You won't find a four star general in the United States Army that agrees with you, that we are at the operational and manpower capacity to wage your war on russia on their home turf of central asia.

That's why this conversation is ridiculous. You have to admit, it really is nothing more than the fanciful musings of a bunch of boys playing armchair general.

please show where i have called for the US Army to fight in central asia?


(hint) Iraq IS just as central as Georgia is

you are making assumption of what i want versus what i have said, the only thing i have responded to was your asinine claim of the US Army being "bogged down" in Iraq, which it ISNT


(edited)for the bolded

you really ARE clueless on the military
who the hell do you think has been rotating in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 6 years?