Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 86

Thread: Does the world seem really screwed up at the moment?

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Captain,

    Instead of wondering if the looney dictator makes plans to inflict more pain, US hoped for a friendly ruler in the country, which at the end was leaving Iran alone, but with enough power to keep the things local.

    Things are not worse now then before Saddam for US, because everyone in the region seem rather busy. Yes, KSA included

    Per your oil price remark think who can sustain high oil prices, the west or the east (to simplify it in order not to name countries).
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #47
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The only one I would put up there is the Kosovo War. The others are of strategic imperatives.

    I decry him for giving away the friggin farm to the Russians and the Chinese.

    New START is everything the Russians wanted.
    I disagree with you that Obama gave away the friggin farm or that the farm was valuable in the first place.

    New Start may have given everything thing the Russians (I disagree with you on this one) US got a lot of things it wanted.

  3. #48
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree View Post
    Sir, I have always been confused as to what strategic advantage was gained by the US from the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
    They got rid of a terrorist threat who has historically shown that he would embark on misguided adventures when he thought he could pull it off without extreme costs, starting with the Iran-Iraq War, the Bush Sr assassination attempt, to issuing chemical weapons release orders on non-existing stock.

    If fake chemical weapons would have prevented an American invasion, he would proceed to get real ones and 11 Sept taught him how to use them.

    I would re-iterate. This is not a court of law. These are strategic imperatives. Law is something for lawyers to rewrite to their hearts content as the Americans have done.

    Quote Originally Posted by lemontree View Post
    In the subcontinent we always look at it as a US strategy of controlling crude oil global prices.

    ISIS is reported to be funded and supplied by the US/NATO.
    Since the ISIS crisis blew up in Iraq, crude oil rates have shot up and affected dollar exchange rates in favour of the former.

    Your views/ comments would be helpful.
    Oil was most certainly a factor. You can't go into an oil rich country without at least a plan on how to control that oil but the primary motivation remained Saddam. The US had better access from Canada and Mexico.
    Chimo

  4. #49
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    I disagree with you that Obama gave away the friggin farm or that the farm was valuable in the first place.
    Given current situation, it now is. We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    New Start may have given everything thing the Russians (I disagree with you on this one) US got a lot of things it wanted.
    New START is a freaking joke. Both sides can legally have 300 more warheads than what is counted and there are no verification nor enforcement on those numbers.
    Chimo

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So Snapper, I ask you.

    What, SPECIFIC, concrete steps would have the specific Western nations do?

    Keep in mind that what is done can not be in violation of current laws or treaties.

    What should we do that we are not already doing?
    Sir, I am not sure I can easily answer such a blunt question but allow me to try to explain my view. You will no doubt be aware of the Clauswitz saying that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means". My point is in a way the obverse of this; that once the battle is won the war doesn't stop, you must win the peace to win the war. No doubt your own extensive historical knowledge will provide examples but allow me to illustrate my view by contrasting the Versailles Peace of WW1 with the Nuremburg War Trials and Marshall Plan WW2. What is more the allied troops stayed - though for different reasons. When the Cold War ended the horrors of their previous rulers were not revealed to the Russian people, if they had been, as the Nuremburg Trials did in Germany, the whole criminalised KGB secret state structure would have been fundamentally undermined - we'd have memorials and eternal flames to those that died in the Gulags and Ukrainian Holodomor rather than former KGB officer trying to establish a 'Novorossiya' in Ukraine now. It was possible in 1992 and we missed it. I recommend Vladimir Bukovsky's (who I have had the honour of meeting) 'Judgement in Moscow'. The war doesn't end once the fighting ends and to believe it does is naeive; the imperial model worked on this understanding. Justice, friendship, lustration and generosity are required to win the 'hearts and minds' once the battles end. We have seen the results of recent failures to grasp this. On the other side of the same coin I would argue that when a civilian population of it's own accord arises and throws off the shackles post Soviet corruption they deserve and require every support we can give - Israel has not been invaded but we provide weapons to her, Ukraine has but we only provide non lethal aid?

    I have already stated specific things that could be done now - two divisions on the Dniepr would end Russian involvement in Ukraine without a fight though Crimea would remain but would become negotiable with possibly a joint administration or a lease solution.

    I thought it easier to respond to the more general question than to continue the detailed point by point discussion with the esteemed Colonel but if the Officer wishes me to answer specific points I am at his service.

  6. #51
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Given current situation, it now is. We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.
    Why was that? it wasn't because of appeasement but because it didn't tactically or strategically work. Most generals were on the record saying that. What makes you different from those generals who had better access to those data and conclusions than you?

    Global Prompt Strike would be treated the same way as ICBM. So not much use there.

    New START is a freaking joke. Both sides can legally have 300 more warheads than what is counted and there are no verification nor enforcement on those numbers.
    The thing about New START is that it doesn't handicap US or restrict US in any of the most important ways and allows US to be more economically feasible with respect to nuclear weapons. For starters, nothing in New START restrict US from any new research or so. Only deployment. Russia doesn't even have the ability to conduct new groundbreaking research and is hard pressed to even match the levels quoted in New START.

    And moreover, you have admitted that US and NATO are moving away from tactical nukes to non nuke delivery platforms and weapons just because it is more effective and more economical.

  7. #52
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Why was that? it wasn't because of appeasement but because it didn't tactically or strategically work. Most generals were on the record saying that. What makes you different from those generals who had better access to those data and conclusions than you?
    The Russians didn't think so. They thought a conventional armed TRIDENT could take out their silos. That in itself was stablizing, at least nuclear war avoiding. The Russians won't have to be scared of an American nuclear first strike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Global Prompt Strike would be treated the same way as ICBM. So not much use there.
    It removed nukes as a viable first strike platform. The reason why we moved away from tac nukes because conventional systems became more effective. Want to get rid of nukes? Get something to replace it ... and this was it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    The thing about New START is that it doesn't handicap US or restrict US in any of the most important ways and allows US to be more economically feasible with respect to nuclear weapons. For starters, nothing in New START restrict US from any new research or so. Only deployment. Russia doesn't even have the ability to conduct new groundbreaking research and is hard pressed to even match the levels quoted in New START.
    Think you better reread the data. The Russians are keeping operational warheads low but their warhead storage is much highter than ours.

    More over, they're fielding new ICBMs. Our last batch was made in 1978.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    And moreover, you have admitted that US and NATO are moving away from tactical nukes to non nuke delivery platforms and weapons just because it is more effective and more economical.
    Precisely. So, why are we allowing the Russians to restrict us to nuclear platforms?
    Chimo

  8. #53
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,232
    Snapper,

    Okay, but I look at this statement and ask ....two divisions on the Dniepr who's 2 divisions?

    I hope you don't think the US. We have 2 BRIGADES in Europe, a STRYKER and an airborne brigade....which is exercising in Poland. We have 2 brigades in Kuwait, 4 brigades in Afghanistan...and several more in the cycle.

    We only have 10 active divisions and 3 independent brigades. (Don't even ask about the National Guard!)

    And we don't have piles of tanks & Bradleys sitting around in Germany any more...the last M1 left Germany a year ago.

    The UK barely has 3 divisions in their entire army...same with the Germans. And when you say 2 divisions you are really saying a corps...so 2 each 17,000 men divisions is really a 60,000 man corps with all of the artillery, air defense, signals, engineer, intel and not to mention a whole bunch of logistics forces behind it.

    So as much as we all might like to see this....well, its not happening.

    There is neither the political will nor defense ties to the Ukraine to justify such a move.

    Remember, there is NO alliance between Ukraine and NATO.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  9. #54
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,390
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    My point is in a way the obverse of this; that once the battle is won the war doesn't stop, you must win the peace to win the war. No doubt your own extensive historical knowledge will provide examples but allow me to illustrate my view by contrasting the Versailles Peace of WW1 with the Nuremburg War Trials and Marshall Plan WW2. What is more the allied troops stayed - though for different reasons. When the Cold War ended the horrors of their previous rulers were not revealed to the Russian people, if they had been, as the Nuremburg Trials did in Germany, the whole criminalised KGB secret state structure would have been fundamentally undermined - we'd have memorials and eternal flames to those that died in the Gulags and Ukrainian Holodomor rather than former KGB officer trying to establish a 'Novorossiya' in Ukraine now. It was possible in 1992 and we missed it.
    Notice in those examples you gave, we actually occupied territory and stayed. Are you suggesting we should have rolled into Russia in 1992?
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,995
    Sir, that is the mistake of the European in particular - including those whom I serve and are aware of my views. The UK deployment of a full Brigade to Poland for exercises is a welcome decision but should be supported. I understand full well that two divisions on the Dniepr is not going to happen but you asked what more could we do to solve the problem, I answered. In the meantime we must win the war we have until other agreements get upto speed. Perhaps favoured nation on a trade basis and allied but not NATO would help but the meanings and intricacies of your political terminology are foreign to me. What I understand is that Ukraine must win it's right to self determination. Whatever assistance can be legally given should be. I believe Ukraine can and will win long term - just how many lives must be lost.

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Notice in those examples you gave, we actually occupied territory and stayed. Are you suggesting we should have rolled into Russia in 1992?

    Sir I do not believe that was necessary, merely the exposure of the Soviet regimes crimes may have proved sufficient. The rest they would do for themselves.

  12. #57
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    S,

    How you would make the KGB expose itself? Yeltsin was the best guy you'd get for such a job, yet he didn't.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    We have literally abandoned Global Prompt Strike.
    I was under the impression that a hypersonic weapon building on the X-51 is planned to enter service in the 2020s. This would seemingly fulfill the Prompt Global Strike requirements while bypassing the danger of looking like a nuclear launch.

    The US appears to be the only country that is even close to developing a real capacity to shoot down incoming ICBMs. I would think mutual reductions in operationally deployed nukes would provide a disproportionate benefit to the side with even limited missile defense capability.

  14. #59
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The Russians didn't think so. They thought a conventional armed TRIDENT could take out their silos. That in itself was stablizing, at least nuclear war avoiding. The Russians won't have to be scared of an American nuclear first strike.
    Tridents are ICBMs and you yourself stated that any ICBM launch would be treated as a nuclear strike by the Russians. They have no way of determining which one is a nuclear ICBM or non-nuclear ICBM. You contradict yourself right there.

    It removed nukes as a viable first strike platform. The reason why we moved away from tac nukes because conventional systems became more effective. Want to get rid of nukes? Get something to replace it ... and this was it.
    Well the problem with that it looked no different from a nuclear ICBM warhead so how do you discern the difference? The Russian general has to make a fast quick decision as to whether to launch the nukes less he lose it in case the warhead are actually nuclear.

    Think you better reread the data. The Russians are keeping operational warheads low but their warhead storage is much highter than ours.
    You think that the Russians are capable of keeping their stored warhead intact and in good working order? They can't even keep their nuke subs in good working order and is hard pressed to keep several in working conditions. What makes you think that Russia is capable of keeping thousands of warheads updated and current? They can't. They don't have the money.

    More over, they're fielding new ICBMs. Our last batch was made in 1978.
    Our last batch have been refurbished several times and updated with new circuitry and fuel. The Russians couldn't afford to do that so had to start new ICBMs and not enough to replace one for one whereas US could.

    Precisely. So, why are we allowing the Russians to restrict us to nuclear platforms?
    Only to those that could be mistaken for nuclear platforms so there is no ambiguity as to whether the oncoming strikes are nuclear or not.

  15. #60
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Tridents are ICBMs
    TRIDENTS are SLBMS. I know you're lawyering these days and married but ... shame, Hitesh, you've been whipped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    and you yourself stated that any ICBM launch would be treated as a nuclear strike by the Russians. They have no way of determining which one is a nuclear ICBM or non-nuclear ICBM. You contradict yourself right there.
    The technology is not mature yet. As of today, a conventional armed TRIDENT cannot take out a Russian silo but we have restricted ourselves from ever developing that technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Well the problem with that it looked no different from a nuclear ICBM warhead so how do you discern the difference? The Russian general has to make a fast quick decision as to whether to launch the nukes less he lose it in case the warhead are actually nuclear.
    Never mind the Russians. What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Pakistanis? Why do we restrict ourselves from conventionally taking out those threats? Why do we have to rely on nukes to take out their arsenals in time critical missions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    You think that the Russians are capable of keeping their stored warhead intact and in good working order? They can't even keep their nuke subs in good working order and is hard pressed to keep several in working conditions.
    Their SSBNs are extremely viable and have resumed Cold War scheduled patrols. My assumption, and would be a valid one, that they're ready for bear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    What makes you think that Russia is capable of keeping thousands of warheads updated and current? They can't. They don't have the money.
    Their doctrine states that they have 30 days (that's how long a crisis would develop) to bring to full alert. At such a point, I don't think money matters much. They're assuming they're going to die.

    However, to answer your point, they're not throwing decommissioned nukes into the Volga because they can't work. They're dismantling them which means that they've got parts galore. All they have to do is to canablize their decomissioning nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Our last batch have been refurbished several times and updated with new circuitry and fuel. The Russians couldn't afford to do that so had to start new ICBMs and not enough to replace one for one whereas US could.
    And they've added features to overcome BMD. The point is the Russians are never as strong as we believe but they're never as weak as we believe. Push comes to shove, they will get their birds into the air. They've always did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Only to those that could be mistaken for nuclear platforms so there is no ambiguity as to whether the oncoming strikes are nuclear or not.
    You mean like B52s, B1s, and B2s, and cruise missile strikes during the Kuwait and Iraq Wars?
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Aug 14, at 01:03.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Those deer and elk are so screwed.
    By bonehead in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10 Feb 12,, 06:32
  2. Blueskid gets screwed again.
    By Bluesman in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07 May 10,, 05:05
  3. No, seriously, these people are SERIOUSLY screwed up
    By Capt Bluesman in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 18 Mar 08,, 07:34
  4. Us married guys are screwed
    By Officer of Engineers in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08 Mar 07,, 16:35
  5. The Recruiting Proccess: How to not get screwed
    By sniperdude411 in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12 Dec 05,, 00:22

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •