Zone1 Russian EMP capabilities......why aren't we taking this seriously?

[DudleySmith]

Hitler was not a stupid man. But it was a bad judgement call for him to invade the Soviet Union -- he thought that Stalin's purges, which decimated the Red Army's officer corps, along with traditional Russian backwardness, would allow a quick win.

If it hadn't been for Churchill's emergency aid in saving Moscow he quite possibly would have won. Without U.S. and British supplies and engineering assets they would never have been a big player even after saving Moscow.

 

[DudleySmith]

The biggest danger from Putin is one day he may just say fuck it and do the unthinkable. No rational leader would use nukes or EMPs but Putin is not rational and a wounded animal is never rational.

He will never use the nuclear option. He just knows it works against wimps and affluent soft countries . His nuclear assets are in the same state as the rest of his military, i.e. junk. Allowing him to get away with his imperialist expansion agenda only encourages bigger wars down the road.

 

[Doug1943]

If it hadn't been for Churchill's emergency aid in saving Moscow he quite possibly would have won. Without U.S. and British supplies and engineering assets they would never have been a big player even after saving Moscow.

Yes, that's a plausible position, although one that's hard to prove, and it's a question where everyone already, before they know any facts, has a hard, emotionally-rooted belief.

Russians point to the enormous "iron price" they paid in driving back Hitler: some 20 million or more lives. (Allied casualties were well less than a million.) . We paid with our tax dollars, they paid with their sons ... as they see it.

They point to the fact that, as the rightwing historian Alan Clark said, sometimes up to 90% of the Werhmacht was engaged on the Eastern Front, and never less than 75%.

They believe we delayed the 'Second Front' so that, as Truman had crassly said when he was a Senator, before we entered the war, we should support whichever side was losing so as to prolong the war, and thus let "[the Germans and Russians] kill as many of each other as possible". [We sent packets of butter to Russia during the war, which they informally named, with bitter irony, "Second Front".]

They recall that Russian troops in non-Russian Europe had always been in response to Russia being invaded -- by Napoleon, and by the Germans (twice in the 20th Century).

And they recall that America sent troops into Russia after WWI, to support the counter-revolutionary forces against the Bolsheviks.

So they see things differently

More profoundly, they see things like all continental European powers see them. They see them as people who do not have two huge oceans on either side of their country, and weak/friendly neighbors above and below, see them.

Americans don't understand how our geography has definitievely shaped not only our history, but our unconscious world-view. We invade other countries, they don't invade us.

Despite what certain loons say from time to time, we're not going to see Chinese landing-craft coming ashore on the West Coast (okay, okay, fellow rightwingers, I know what you're going to say, serve 'em right, etc .. but it won't happen).

We never faced even the faintest possibility of defeat and occupation in any war we have fought since 1812. (There is a very moving passage in Churchill's memoirs, recounting his first being told about Pearl Harbor -- he was entertaining the American in charge of Lend-Lease at the time. He said he knew then that they had won. [He also said that although there were those who thought the Americans would not be up to fighting a modern war, that he had studied the history of the Civil War ... "fought out to the last desperate inch" ... and he went to bed feeling saved and grateful.)

The Russians see things differently, and not just old Stalinists or pro-Putinites. Our ambassador to Russia in 2008 -- now the head of the CIA -- wrote then that Ukrainian membership of NATO was "the brightest of bright red lines" for everyone he knew in Moscow, not just the people around Putin.

Our wise leaders decided to march towards that bright red line, and the Russians have responded exactly like anyone with knowledge of them would have predicted they would respond.

 

[beagle9]

The biggest danger from Putin is one day he may just say fuck it and do the unthinkable. No rational leader would use nukes or EMPs but Putin is not rational and a wounded animal is never rational.

He may figure that he is highly rational if he compares himself to the leftist here in America, and with that much crazy information to use by his propaganda machine, I don't think any rational minded person can say he's irrational if he then uses our stupidity against us.

 

[beagle9]

He will never use the nuclear option. He just knows it works against wimps and affluent soft countries . His nuclear assets are in the same state as the rest of his military, i.e. junk. Allowing him to get away with his imperialist expansion agenda only encourages bigger wars down the road.

Only takes a few of his multiple warhead delivery system's to strike at the heart of our beast, and it would be a tragic thing for the million's to recover from.

 

[DudleySmith]

it would be a tragic thing for the million's to recover from.

So is letting these vermin slaughter entire countries.

 

[Doug1943]

Because we aren't directly involved, Einstein. If we were directly involved with on the ground troops and actual up to date weponry instead of our leftovers, we could wipe the floor with the slavs.

Hmmm..... I think this is a direct translation from something a German leader told his worried generals, in early June of 1941.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Hmmm..... I think this is a direct translation from something a German leader told his worried generals, in early June of 1941.

No, not at all...

 

[Doug1943]

The biggest danger from Putin is one day he may just say fuck it and do the unthinkable. No rational leader would use nukes or EMPs but Putin is not rational and a wounded animal is never rational.

Why do you say "Putin is not rational"?

Leaders of big countries with what they think are strong militaries have been known to invade other countries, expecting quick victories and the subsequent re-making of those countries in ways the invader wants.

For example, Mr Bush (and the majority of the representatives of both political parties) in Iraq, and Afghanistan. They weren't "irrational". They just didn't understand national/tribal feeling.

They assumed that of course those poor Iraqis and Afghans would welcome the nice white Christian invaders, throwing candy bars to their children, and setting up governments that met the invaders' approval, advancing womens and LGBT+ rights, etc.

And we couldn't just sit on the sidelines and watch "these vermin slaughter entire countries".

If you look at any of the videos of Putin and the international press corps, his cold-blooded rationality is obvious.
Here's one with Chris Wallace, from a few years ago:
Does this seem like an "irrational" man to you?

Not mention the laughable irony of people whose choice of leaders is either Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, talking about the intellectual deficiencies of other countries' leaders!!!

As Trotsky said, in war, all sides lie a great deal, and that includes our side.

 

[MarathonMike]

Why do you say "Putin is not rational"?

Leaders of big countries with what they think are strong militaries have been known to invade other countries, expecting quick victories and the subsequent re-making of those countries in ways the invader wants.

For example, Mr Bush (and the majority of the representatives of both political parties) in Iraq, and Afghanistan. They weren't "irrational". They just didn't understand national/tribal feeling.

They assumed that of course those poor Iraqis and Afghans would welcome the nice white Christian invaders, throwing candy bars to their children, and setting up governments that met the invaders' approval, advancing womens and LGBT+ rights, etc.

And we couldn't just sit on the sidelines and watch "these vermin slaughter entire countries".

If you look at any of the videos of Putin and the international press corps, his cold-blooded rationality is obvious.
Here's one with Chris Wallace, from a few years ago:
Does this seem like an "irrational" man to you?

Not mention the laughable irony of people whose choice of leaders is either Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, talking about the intellectual deficiencies of other countries' leaders!!!

As Trotsky said, in war, all sides lie a great deal, and that includes our side.

A rational leader of a country would not risk the stability of his own country to fulfill an obsession of expansion. When a quick victory was obviously not going to happen, a rational leader would have stopped the attack on Ukraine.

 

[Doug1943]

A rational leader of a country would not risk the stability of his own country to fulfill an obsession of expansion. When a quick victory was obviously not going to happen, a rational leader would have stopped the attack on Ukraine.

Hmmm... a lot of people said, after Dunkirk, that the rational thing for the British to do was to accept German domination of the continent, and do a deal. But ... "the heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing". And the heart -- or rather, Churchill's heart, and the hearts of the British people under his leadership, didn't do that.

As for Mr Putin ... having committed himself to bringing Ukraine back within Russia, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for him to say, "Oops!!! What the devil! I told my troops to "Evade the Ukrainians, not Invade them! Got to get my telephone line fixed! Sorry guys ... we'll just go home and let's all start over, okay?"

Hindsight is 20-20. Would that our Great Leaders 20 years ago could see what would happen if they invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan. (For, for that matter, Vietnam.)

But it seemed like a good idea at the time.

It's natural for citizens, patriots, of one country not to understand the national feelings of another country.

The Japanese thought that if they crippled the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Americans would either not want to go to war over places thousands of miles across the Pacific, or would be so slow in rebuilding that they (the Japanese) would have time to consolidate their conquests and have an impregnable string of bases by the time the reluctant Americans were able to go to war.

It was not a stupid view. Ordinary Americans did not want to get into another war, after WWI. (About half of them believed the Jews were to some extent to blame for their own problems.)

So I suppose they were surprised when, the day after Pearl Harbor, the lines at Marine and Army recruiting stations stretched three times around the block ... and even more surprised when our aircraft carriers and dive bombers turned up at Midway six months later.

No one knows the future. No military battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.

These are old cliches, but we should take them to heart. And so should Mr Putin and Mr Bush have done. And Mr Johnson and Mr Hitler and the Kaiser before them. And the French looking at French IndoChina after the war ... and Americans looking at the same place a bit later.

They didn't. But they were not 'irrational' for not doing so.

 

[beagle9]

So is letting these vermin slaughter entire countries.

Whose fault is it when you get right down to the brass tacks of it all ? World politics aren't easily controlled by America these days, but America loves to be in the mix or rather our American government does anyways. Are we control freak's and warmongers any more ?? Hope not...... The entire question that it all comes down too, is why did Russia do what it did, and has it indicated anywhere prior that it wanted to do more or that it would go farther than Ukraine ? Important information to be truthful about.

 

[DudleySmith]

Whose fault is it when you get right down to the brass tacks of it all ? World politics aren't easily controlled by America these days, but America loves to be in the mix or rather our American government does anyways.

We're seeing the results of the U.S. not backing up its allies; countries being destabilized and two big expansionist nuclear powers feeling like they can invade their neighbors with impunity or actively threatening to. Whose fault is that? Have any ides on where all that has led to in the past? Do you believe it costs us nothing if we just stay out of it all?

Are we control freak's and warmongers any more ?? Hope not...... The entire question that it all comes down too, is why did Russia do what it did, and has it indicated anywhere prior that it wanted to do more or that it would go farther than Ukraine ? Important information to be truthful about.

lol we have Putin's own speeches and words, same as we had Hitler's, to go by.

 

[Doug1943]

Question: suppose an even more leftwing guy than the current one wins the next Presidential election in Mexico, and has a majority in their equivalent of Congress.

And suppose the Chinese then woe him with cheap loans to finance the expansion of Mexican infrastructure -- roads, ports, airports, done by the Chinese.

So we now have a large Chinese presence in Mexico. Everything there can be bought, including the politicians, police and military ... and the Chinese have money.

I assume we would not be happy with this. Exactly how we would react I don't know, but it probably wouldn't be with cries of joy. It's quite possible we would hear calls to do what we did a little over a century ago, and send the Army across the border. Certainly the reaction would be hostile.

I can see the Chinese then persuading the Mexicans to beef up their military ... with Chinese help, in the form of training, advisors, and weapons. Maybe not a formal defense pact, but an ever-closer integration of Mexico into the Chinese economic/diplomatic/military sphere.

Maybe even with the prospect of Chinese missiles in Mexico, aimed at us.

How would we react? After all, Mexico is a sovereign nation ... just like Ukraine ... who ought to be able to make alliances with whomever they like.

Right?

How would we react?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Question: suppose an even more leftwing guy than the current one wins the next Presidential election in Mexico, and has a majority in their equivalent of Congress.

And suppose the Chinese then woe him with cheap loans to finance the expansion of Mexican infrastructure -- roads, ports, airports, done by the Chinese.

So we now have a large Chinese presence in Mexico. Everything there can be bought, including the politicians, police and military ... and the Chinese have money.

I assume we would not be happy with this. Exactly how we would react I don't know, but it probably wouldn't be with cries of joy. It's quite possible we would hear calls to do what we did a little over a century ago, and send the Army across the border. Certainly the reaction would be hostile.

I can see the Chinese then persuading the Mexicans to beef up their military ... with Chinese help, in the form of training, advisors, and weapons. Maybe not a formal defense pact, but an ever-closer integration of Mexico into the Chinese economic/diplomatic/military sphere.

Maybe even with the prospect of Chinese missiles in Mexico, aimed at us.

How would we react? After all, Mexico is a sovereign nation ... just like Ukraine ... who ought to be able to make alliances with whomever they like.

Right?

How would we react?

"woe" him? Try that again in English this time.

 

[Doug1943]

"woe" him? Try that again in English this time.

Ah, sorry, you were unable to figure out that I actually meant 'woo' instead of 'woe', and were therefore prevented from understanding what I was saying.

Okay, now you know. So, now, what do you think of the argument? What would we do, if Mexico became China's Ukraine?

 

[beagle9]

We're seeing the results of the U.S. not backing up its allies; countries being destabilized and two big expansionist nuclear powers feeling like they can invade their neighbors with impunity or actively threatening to. Whose fault is that? Have any ides on where all that has led to in the past? Do you believe it costs us nothing if we just stay out of it all?

lol we have Putin's own speeches and words, same as we had Hitler's, to go by.

Care to link us specifically to those quotes or speeches ? Thanks.

U.S. not backing up it's allie's ? Oh you mean those allie's we just so happen to have shady trade and business deals with, although we are lacking big time on having mutual value's and morals that we might all agree upon in which makes us these so called die for each other as allie's in life types of relationships that once defined our relationships ???

Where in the heck have you been ? Living under a rock ??? Do you realize how deplorable and disgusting we've become as a nation ? If anyone does stand with each other in the world today, it won't be because of anyone's value's and morals. That type of thing has since left the building.

 

[2aguy]

Only takes a few of his multiple warhead delivery system's to strike at the heart of our beast, and it would be a tragic thing for the million's to recover from.

Millions wouldn't recover...they would die slow deaths...........thousands might survive...but they would be very different people.....and China and Russia would then have their way with the world.......

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Millions wouldn't recover...they would die slow deaths...........thousands might survive...but they would be very different people.....and China and Russia would then have their way with the world.......

Russia and China could survive a nuclear attack from the US?

 

[2aguy]

Russia and China could survive a nuclear attack from the US?

Their leadership could.....and as we saw with the Chinese Flu....they engineered a virus that targeted the old.......old people are a major problem for China.......