Possible war between USA and Russia or China

In the event that folks in Russia were unaware, America's nuclear arsenal is VERY old. The Peacekeeper missiles (which were armed with 10 MIRV) have all been retired and decommissioned as of 2005. These were the most advanced land-based ICBMs in the American arsenal. They entered production/service in 1986 and they were fairly advanced and remained relatively advanced throughout the 1990s.


At the present time America's ONLY land-based ICBMs are of the Minuteman III class, which entered production and service in 1970... Yes, you read that right, 1970...

America's land based ICBMs are all centered around a design that is 42 years old, with most of the missiles being at least 30-40 years old in terms of their physical age. The production ran from 1970 until 1978 so the youngest Minuteman III would be 34 years old (made in 1978).


Unless I am massively mistaken, Russia and China have been commissioning new classes of missiles, much more advanced types of missiles, and building new missiles that are much younger than anything America has or is likely to have in the near future.

Russia has new and advanced road mobile ICBMs, as does China, missiles that were designed in the late 1990s early 2000s and that entered production as recently as 2005. The missiles are more advanced, based on more recent/newer technology, and they are physically younger than the aging and outdated American missiles.


Obviously I am hoping that no matter what happens the world can avoid any sort of nuclear war/nuclear exchange. I don't want to see Russia and America or Russia and anybody or America and anybody wind up in a nuclear exchange/war. However, it seems odd to me that Russia is apparently on a spending spree with nuclear weapons when they have yet to modernize their ground forces in regards to acquiring sufficient numbers of the BTR-90s, BMP-3s, T-90s, etc. It is highly unlikely they will be in a situation where they have to use nuclear weapons, but they seem to have had numerous instances where more of the advanced armored vehicles would have been helpful (Chechnya, Georgia, etc).


Do Russians feel that nuclear war is inevitable? Are they worried and concerned that America may want to start a nuclear war?



I snagged this clip from another site-


http://www.jrnyquist.com/war_preps.htm


USA war preparations

No civil defense.

No national missile defense.

No road or rail-mobile ICBMs.

Abandonment of the Panama Canal.

U.S. officials have allowed nuclear warhead secrets to leak out to China.

The U.S. pays Russia billions of dollars to encourage disarmament measures, but these billions are diverted to Russian war preparations.

The U.S. Navy is short of fuel.

The U.S. Army is short of recruits and officers, and has only 10 divisions, with 8 of them unfit for combat.

The U.S. Air Force is facing pilot shortages, and many aircraft remain grounded for lack of spare parts.

Only 18 ballistic missile submarines remain in the U.S. Navy, with only 9 at sea on any given day.

America's ballistic missile submarine commanders no longer have the launch codes to fire their nuclear weapons, but must rely on the president to send them the launch codes in the event of a war emergency.

Shop until you drop.

Wave good-bye to your country.

Say hello to your new landlord, Mr. Wang.




Russian war preparations

Moscow has outfitted hundreds of fighter-bombers with additional fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability, augmenting Russia's intercontinental strike capability.

Russia has been constructing large numbers of military transport aircraft for foreign customers who do not exist.

Russia has been building and accumulating dry docks even though, at the moment, no foreign customers for them exist.

Russia has recently fielded a new battle tank; a new state-of-the-art fighter; super-quiet submarines which can engage sea, land and air targets simultaneously; a new attack helicopter and sniper rifle.

Russia has developed a revolutionary new rifle-fired infantry weapon, the so-called vacuum grenade, which can give a single Russian soldier the firepower of a 155mm howitzer. Russia has begun joint production of this weapon with the Chinese.

Russia now emphasizes the production of mobile ICBMs like the Topol-M, which are designed to evade satellite detection, permitting the Russians to cheat on arms control agreements.

Russia continues to develop biological and chemical weapons, sometimes with the use of U.S. funds. According to recent defectors, Russia is now working on a super-plague weapon.

Russian diplomacy is clearly attempting to build an anti-American alliance which includes countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran and India.

Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets.

Russia is hoarding strategic metals which are vital for keeping up war production through the first months of a nuclear world war.

Russia is importing more food than needed for domestic consumption. At the same time, Russia has constructed huge underground nuclear-proof food storage facilities.

Russia has developed an impressive engineering rescue capability, organized into special military formations positioned outside large cities, for rescuing citizens trapped beneath rubble in the event of a nuclear attack.

Recent Russian movies and pop songs depict Americans as stupid animals who deserve to die. In keeping with this theme, NATO is depicted as an aggressive alliance, sometimes likened to Hitler's Third Reich.

Russia is building huge underground cities, like the one at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. These cities are built more than a thousand feet into the earth and are able to withstand direct nuclear attack.

Russia has been modernizing nuclear bunkers located beneath Moscow.

Russia has erected a system of national missile defense far beyond that allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty. Deploying approximately 10,000 dual-purpose mobile SAM/ABMs, Russia has used a loophole in the treaty to provide a powerful missile shield. Using a common-sense approach to ABM defense, Russia's interceptor missiles employ special nuclear warheads that can destroy incoming warheads without having to score a direct head-on hit.

Russia is also ahead of the United States in directed energy weapons that could be used to blind or destroy U.S. early warning satellites.

Many of Russia's mafia organizations operate in collaboration with, or under the supervision of, military intelligence and the state security services. Organized crime is used to penetrate Western banks, technology companies, law enforcement and government. Routes used for smuggling drugs and other contraband are reserved in wartime for bringing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons into the U.S.


Chinese war preparations

Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities around July 2000.

Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with America could begin at any time.

China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41.

China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers.

China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear warheads.

China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the Panama Canal through front companies.

China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle East.

China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite Taiwan.

China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces.

Don't mean to sound rude, but are of those claims about Russia and China backed by reliable sources? Some of them sound laughable, and some appear to be figments of imagination.

Example "Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets." Now even if they did, they wouldn't exactly go around telling everybody they see about it, would they?

The amusing thing is that most of the cold war propaganda where the US accuses the Soviets of doing something bad is most often because they are doing the exact same thing to them but if they accuse the Soviets of doing it when it is revealed that the US did it too they can claim they only did it because the Soviets did it first (or were on record as being accused of doing it first).

The clear leader of the Cold war for the most part was the US and the Soviets merely reacted.

Case in point the Soviets put intermediate range nuclear missiles in Cuba... bad soviets... but then the only reason they actually did that was because the US put jupiter IRBMs in Turkey just the width of the Black Sea from Moscow first... evil soviets...

The US was happy to inject its own citizens with plutonium to determine the effects, and regularly released viruses and monitored hospitals to determine the spread and speed of viral epidemics in US cities.

The people injected with Plutonium obviously died and who knows how many other people died because hospitals were so busy with patients infected on purpose they didn't have the capacity to treat those who were not infected by the US Government.

I think the funniest thing about the evil reds under the bed theory about China is that they ignore the fact that China owns US debt to such a degree if they really hated the US they could simply demand repayment which would bankrupt the US over night. Of course it would mean the US debt the Chinese owned would become worthless with a bankrupt US.

Very simply... the US has let its ICBMs go a little, though it has kept them maintained and upgraded they are not the strongest leg of the US nuclear triad. The US has invested rather more in its air delivered and sub components and it shows.

However, it seems odd to me that Russia is apparently on a spending spree with nuclear weapons when they have yet to modernize their ground forces in regards to acquiring sufficient numbers of the BTR-90s, BMP-3s, T-90s, etc.

They replaced most of their Soviet era ICBMs because most were made or had parts made in the Ukraine and Belarus. The rush to make new missiles is actually a rush to get all Russian missiles into service.

The reason BTR-90 and BMP-3 and T-90s have not been bought in bulk is because they changed their doctrine and now have plans for all new vehicles based on 4 different chassis called Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10. The Armata will be a tank weight/mobility/protection/firepower vehicle family so every vehicle in a heavy tank or motorrifle brigade will be on a Armata chassis including the tank, IFV, air defence vehicle, SPH, engineer vehicle, etc etc etc. In a medium brigade all the vehicles will either be a Kurganets-25 or a Boomerang-25 vehicles... both of which will be amphibious 25 ton class vehicles the K being tracked and the Boomerang being wheeled. The light brigades will be all boomerang-10 vehicles in the 10 ton weight class though ranging up to about 16-17 tons. This means a light brigade logistics tail has spares and support equipment for the Boomerang-10 vehicle family. The electronics and systems in the Armata tank vehicle will be the same as the electronics and systems in the other vehicle families tank vehicle though the boomerang-10 might not carry a 125mm gun... but then again it might because a 6 wheeled 17 ton vehicle is not that much different from Sprut at 18 tons...

The lack of rush to upgrade the Russian conventional military is that most of the new stuff is not ready yet and will start production in 2015 or so.

Do Russians feel that nuclear war is inevitable? Are they worried and concerned that America may want to start a nuclear war?

No. They know a nuclear war is not inevitable, but they also know that the west has made a lot of verbal promises it has not kept and it also knows that the best system we know of so far is MAD.

Russia is not complaining about US ABM systems all over the place because they want to be able to nuke the US... they are complaining about the US ABM systems all over the place because they know it upsets MAD. If one side ends up with a shield to stop ballistic missiles they might start to think they could get away with a small clean surgical war that risks little and offers great returns.

Russia is not afraid they wont get to use their nukes... they are afraid the US will push them into a corner and force them to use them... the fact that the US was wrong when it thought it could fight and win a nuclear war will be very little consolation...

No national missile defense.

BS. What are those missiles in Alaska for then?

With ABM missiles on AEGIS cruisers they can locate their ships on either US coast and hit missiles coming from Russia if they wanted. The later upgrades of SM-3 would make it rather easy.

No road or rail-mobile ICBMs.

No nuclear powers on their border able to launch a nuclear attack giving minutes of warning time. The US planned a rail based system and cancelled it. Road mobile systems are only good to ensure they survive the first strike, The US has built its forces around a first strike since the Cuban missile crisis... stealth bombers don't need to be stealthy for WWIII except when used as part of a first strike against threats still operational.

In comparison the Bear bombers will arrive over Canada about 6 hours after the first Russian ICBMs and SLBMs have wiped out much of North America... they will launch cruise missiles which will likely take another 5-6 hours to reach their targets but the enemy air defences will be in tatters already.

The U.S. pays Russia billions of dollars to encourage disarmament measures, but these billions are diverted to Russian war preparations.

The US doesn't pay a cent to anything it does not benefit from... it paid for subs to be disposed of and warheads to be disposed of. They were paranoid about it turning up in some officials bank account and they have kept a very close eye on where all the money went and none of it was diverted.

Moscow has outfitted hundreds of fighter-bombers with additional fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability, augmenting Russia's intercontinental strike capability.

What? NATO has land bases within unrefueled flight range of Russia and not only has aircraft that can carry drop tanks but also has aircraft fitted with inflight refuelling and also has enough tanker aircraft to actually make them meaningful. While the majority of Russian service aircraft don't have inflight refuelling capability and they have about a dozen tanker aircraft that operate with their strategic bombers compared with the hundreds of inflight refuelling tankers of the USAF.

Russia has been constructing large numbers of military transport aircraft for foreign customers who do not exist.

They are just starting to produce military transport aircraft to make up for the neglect for the last 20 years.

Russia has recently fielded a new battle tank; a new state-of-the-art fighter; super-quiet submarines which can engage sea, land and air targets simultaneously; a new attack helicopter and sniper rifle.

And have very few actually in service... the vast majority of their inservice stuff is the old obsolete stuff they have had since the end of the cold war.

Russia has developed a revolutionary new rifle-fired infantry weapon, the so-called vacuum grenade, which can give a single Russian soldier the firepower of a 155mm howitzer. Russia has begun joint production of this weapon with the Chinese.

Rubbish. And why would they share such technology with the Chinese?

If they mean the RPO series of flame rockets they have been in service for 30 years and were used in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Russia now emphasizes the production of mobile ICBMs like the Topol-M, which are designed to evade satellite detection, permitting the Russians to cheat on arms control agreements.

The production and location of TOPOL-M is strictly controlled and monitored and it is being produced because it is all Russian.

Russia continues to develop biological and chemical weapons, sometimes with the use of U.S. funds. According to recent defectors, Russia is now working on a super-plague weapon.

Yet their best biochemist defected to the US in the 1990s and is now working for the US on super plagues.

WTF... defectors? When was this list compiled?

Russian diplomacy is clearly attempting to build an anti-American alliance which includes countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran and India.

US arrogance is pushing away former US allies and creating a large group of countries that want to deal on equal terms rather than be lectured to.

Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets.

Rubbish.

Russia is hoarding strategic metals which are vital for keeping up war production through the first months of a nuclear world war.

Most of the known deposits in the world of titanium are in Russia and are used in the F-35 comes from Russia... hoarding my @$$. They just happen to have an enormous land mass that contains enormous amounts of raw materials and not many people.

Russia is importing more food than needed for domestic consumption. At the same time, Russia has constructed huge underground nuclear-proof food storage facilities.

What is this crap? If Russia wants a nuclear war what is it waiting for... and why is it spending money to upgrade its conventional forces? Why would it bother signing new Start?

Russia has developed an impressive engineering rescue capability, organized into special military formations positioned outside large cities, for rescuing citizens trapped beneath rubble in the event of a nuclear attack.

BS.

Recent Russian movies and pop songs depict Americans as stupid animals who deserve to die. In keeping with this theme, NATO is depicted as an aggressive alliance, sometimes likened to Hitler's Third Reich.

Recent western computer games allow you to murder Russian civilians in an Airport like a terrorist the west claims to hate and have a current war on. US generally don't depict Russians at all unless they need a drunk, or incompetent copier of old US technology.

Russia is building huge underground cities, like the one at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. These cities are built more than a thousand feet into the earth and are able to withstand direct nuclear attack.

Rubbish.... these cities are actually on the moon.

Russia has been modernizing nuclear bunkers located beneath Moscow.

No... silly... they are on the moon.

Russia has erected a system of national missile defense far beyond that allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty. Deploying approximately 10,000 dual-purpose mobile SAM/ABMs, Russia has used a loophole in the treaty to provide a powerful missile shield. Using a common-sense approach to ABM defense, Russia's interceptor missiles employ special nuclear warheads that can destroy incoming warheads without having to score a direct head-on hit.

10,000 ABM missiles... so why are they bothering with S-400 and S-500? Why did they not attack the US in the 1990s when things were sh!t?

Russia is also ahead of the United States in directed energy weapons that could be used to blind or destroy U.S. early warning satellites.

So what? Any attack on early warning satellites just tells you an attack is on... you don't need to be able to see the ICBMs coming... you just need to give the order to launch... unless you expect to be able to track the Russian attack to defend against it and try to win a nuclear war... I thought you said the ABM system was directed against Iranian missiles?

Many of Russia's mafia organizations operate in collaboration with, or under the supervision of, military intelligence and the state security services. Organized crime is used to penetrate Western banks, technology companies, law enforcement and government. Routes used for smuggling drugs and other contraband are reserved in wartime for bringing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons into the U.S.

The US would never associate with organised crime... cough cough bay of pigs cough cough... get Kennedy elected cough cough...

Chinese war preparations

Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities around July 2000.

Then I suggest you focus on the Swedish... they have extensive civil defence bunkers and have been maintaining them for decades.

Israel probably has more nukes than the Chinese... if they are preparing for a nuclear war it will be one they expect the US to start.

Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with America could begin at any time.

The reckless behaviour of the US military that doesn't surprise me.

China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41.

Road mobile missiles are only a problem for countries that want to mount first strike attacks... which is why the US never bothered with road or rail based systems. They plan to start the war so who cares if the enemy launches an attack on their empty silos?

China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers.

When of course the US is withdrawing all its new stuff and introducing muskets. It would be funny, the US with 13 carrier groups whining because China is buying new stuff...

China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear warheads.

Which is only a small fraction of the number of warheads the US currently has in service let alone the number it has in storage.

China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the Panama Canal through front companies.

Rubbish. What bases? The US accusing a foreign country of having bases outside its territory? That blog will burst into flames any second... the US has more men and women on foreign soil based around the world today than they lost in the whole of WWII... and they are complaining that China might have a base or two?

China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

The US used to have military ties with both countries. How else do you think Venezuela got F-16 fighter jets or for that matter the US got a lifetime lease on Guantanimo Bay torture centre in Cuba?

China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle East.

The US... the largest arms exporter in the world complaining about China selling products. Hypocrite...

China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite Taiwan.

...in CHINA. I know having troops in your own country is a bit of a alien concept for the US military, but it is actually legal.

China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces.

The US actively supported one side in the Chinese civil war that led to the creation of Taiwan and supplies modern military equipment to Taiwan... which would be the direct equivalent of China giving Cuba lots of money and weapons...

Well that was an interesting read through the Republican manifesto... I hope they beat those commies in their heads... you know, after making the bestest of friends with the commie chinese and still hating Russia after it became democratic.

I'm not saying everything in that link is necessarily or absolutely correct, but the Russians and Chinese are procuring lots of new and advanced missiles, right? This is a fact, isn't it?


As for what you said about Israel having more nuclear weapons than China I have no doubt that is indeed the case. Israel supposedly has around 300-400 nuclear weapons, while China has less than 200.


As for the US ABM system, from what I gather it is basically a placebo, a feel-good system that won't achieve what it is supposed to achieve. The ABM is basically a political toy for NATO so the USA can claim to be doing something to assure the safety of NATO members.


Also, I am very much aware that American leaders/officials violate their words/promises, especially in regards to the promises that Gorbachev claims they made in regards to not expanding NATO into the former Warsaw Pact nations. I believe Gorbachev is telling the truth when he claims that such promises were made by US/NATO leaders.

If I were in a leadership position in Russia I think I could stomach NATO expanding into Poland, barely tolerating it for the sake of peace, but if they try to expand into Ukraine I would draw the line, up the ante, and tell them, in very simple terms, "back down or we can fight it out, the decision is yours."

NATO is also very hostile to Belarus for reasons that I cannot quite comprehend. They refer to Lukashenko as a tyrant and a thug who supposedly limits criticism of his regime, but the Western nations all have "hate speech" laws and they severely curtail criticism of their administrations through the use of economic pressure. If you speak out against their governments they do everything they can to get you fired from your job.

I'm not defending NATO, I am merely expressing my concern that the Russians/Chinese might be initiating another nuclear arms race.

It is very odd that Russian VDV units are training in Colorado. They have been tasked to "take and hold" the Denver Airport, an NSA base, and a CIA base, against hostile forces.


http://rt.com/news/troops-russian-drills-america-214/




It raises an interesting question, what hostile forces would the VDV need to fight against to "take and hold" the Denver International Airport and the massive CIA base in the Denver area? It cannot possibly be Mexican cartels/terrorists because Mexico is probably a good 1200-1500 miles away from Denver and the USA has ample units (101st, 82nd, etc) that could "take and hold" an airport in Colorado.

I highly suspect that the projected "hostile forces" are none other than armed local citizens who might be rising up in revolt against the CIA/NSA/FBI/USA/NATO regime.

I'm not saying everything in that link is necessarily or absolutely correct, but the Russians and Chinese are procuring lots of new and advanced missiles, right? This is a fact, isn't it?

Yes, that is a fact... but a very unimportant one.

What people who talk about such facts ignore is that while they are making new ones their arsenal is going from 6,000 warheads under START 1 to less than 2,200 under the Moscow Treaty, and now to about 1,500 under the new Start.

They are replacing older model missiles containing foreign components with newer Russian models... it really isn't that big a deal.

As for the US ABM system, from what I gather it is basically a placebo, a feel-good system that won't achieve what it is supposed to achieve. The ABM is basically a political toy for NATO so the USA can claim to be doing something to assure the safety of NATO members.

The system is very limited and has fairly basic missiles, but if you actually read the plan they talk about several block upgrades over the next 10 years that include several significant upgrades in performance of the interceptor missiles and by block three they are talking about very high performance very capable missiles. The initial shield is very modest and could be overwhelmed easily because it has limited performance against decoys.

The point however is that the system is designed to fit AEGIS class cruisers which are in service in large numbers... I am sure the US would respond negatively to a Russian ABM system that could fit in SA-20 missile tubes and could operate with SA-20 batteries... these systems are no unregulated and there is nothing to stop the US from building as many ABM missiles as they want and deploying them and deciding not to actually tell anyone... there is no restriction on numbers or deployment and no requirement for any notification of any kind.

The US signed the new START treaty which clearly stated that strategic weapons are directly linked to strategic defences, which means Russia is hardly going to agree to reduce warhead numbers while the US starts building ABM systems all round the world.

If I were in a leadership position in Russia I think I could stomach NATO expanding into Poland, barely tolerating it for the sake of peace, but if they try to expand into Ukraine I would draw the line, up the ante, and tell them, in very simple terms, "back down or we can fight it out, the decision is yours."

To be honest NATO expansion into the Ukraine or even Georgia has never bothered me... Russia as a nation needs to think about itself first, and if Georgia and the Ukraine want to join NATO then I have no problem with that, but of course you can't join a gang that your next door neighbour is excluded from and expect it not to effect your relationship for the worse.

I think that most of Europe are a bunch of stuck up snobs that are very eurocentric and that Russia should look elsewhere for economic and military partnerships. I don't think Russia should reject Europe but I also don't think it can expect any real friendship from the region as a whole.

There are some states they have good relationships with and they should be maintained, but it is like the youngest kid in an abusive family jumping through hoops to earn the love and respect they need but are never going to get. Russia has been through the Yeltsen period and it got them nothing and nowhere.

Obviously I am not Russian, but I think the west had a huge opportunity that it has blown.

The west likes to point out that WWII was created because of western actions after WWI in blaming Germany they created a time bomb that ended up costing them dearly... though ironically it was Russia that paid the highest price. The western historians claimed they learned their lesson and rebuilt their former foes but in reality the rebuilding of Germany and Japan had nothing to do with lessons learned.

The Cold war was not a war against communism as depicted in the west... otherwise China would have become the main enemy and Russia would have been built up to counter them... the reality is that Russia was the enemy because it has the potential to be a real rival and a real threat... even today and that is what the west is still fighting for... open up their markets so the big powerful western companies can go in and take everything over... in China it is 1.5 billion consumers that has the western companies mouths watering... in Russia it is the oil and gas and metals etc etc.

I'm not defending NATO, I am merely expressing my concern that the Russians/Chinese might be initiating another nuclear arms race.

Well if your concern is an arms race then tell the US government to halt all ABM activity because that is the only thing that will create an arms race.

Consider the situation that both the Russians and the US are cowboys with handguns... both are quick enough and accurate enough that if one tries to shoot the other they will both likely end up dead. To reduce the chance of an accident or mistake or misunderstanding leading to them both being killed they have both agreed to limit the type of weapon they are allowed to use... both have cannons with 5 second fuses and grapeshot loads so if one lights their fuse the other will see and light their fuse and neither will escape the hundreds of heavy lead balls that will be discharged by both weapons.

The problem is that with the ABM systems the US has set up a paper wall to stand behind because he is afraid the guy down the street might develop firearm technology and try to shoot at him.

Now that paper screen doesn't mean anything to start with but this American has plans in a couple of years to put up a few more screens that can move about and they will be made of wood and a bit further down the track the plans show he will start experimenting with different types of metals of varying thicknesses.

Now all the while he is claiming he wont hide behind it if the other guy lights his fuse... but he wont put that in writing... trust him.

In about 2020 when the US guy is standing behind moving plates of steel he will be trying to get the Russian guy to limit the weight of the projectiles in his cannon load.

Obviously if the US continues down the ABM development path Russia will tear up the new START treaty and they will look at the potential... not the capability... the potential of the US ABM systems around the place and they will build missiles and other systems to defeat that by a safe margin.

Not because they want a nuclear war... but because they don't, so they want to maintain their nuclear DETERRENT.

I highly suspect that the projected "hostile forces" are none other than armed local citizens who might be rising up in revolt against the CIA/NSA/FBI/USA/NATO regime.

Russia wont send combat troops to Afghanistan... why would they send any to the US... except on exercise?

Anti terrorism training is normal and as far as I know the US already has similar exercises with its NATO partners too... if things get bad in the US I rather suspect it will be British or German troops in the US before they ever consider Russian troops... and even if they wanted them I rather doubt the Russian government would consider sending them. The problems in Kazakhstan and they didn't send in Russian troops to interfere there eitehr.

[quote="GarryB"]

Russia wont send combat troops to Afghanistan... why would they send any to the US... except on exercise?

Anti terrorism training is normal and as far as I know the US already has similar exercises with its NATO partners too... if things get bad in the US I rather suspect it will be British or German troops in the US before they ever consider Russian troops... and even if they wanted them I rather doubt the Russian government would consider sending them. The problems in Kazakhstan and they didn't send in Russian troops to interfere there eitehr.

I don't even want Canadian soldiers training in the USA, I also do not approve of the Luftwaffe airbase that the Germans get to operate in the Southwestern United States.

The prospect of having several thousand VDV in the Midwestern/Western USA is not particularly inviting.

I'd rather they not be here.



On another note, why can't the USA just share the ABM with Russia so Russia doesn't have to worry about rogues obtaining a lost/misplaced/retired warhead and slapping it on a missile they obtain from somewhere. I don't believe Russia would hide behind an ABM and use it as a shield to start a nuclear war, but the USA does have a history of using nuclear weapons against other nations. I doubt Japan would have been attacked with nuclear weapons if they had their own nuclear weapons at the time (assuming the USA knew about the nuclear weapons).


If NATO is going to expand east why don't they invite Russia to join NATO?

Chechnya is basically a "front" (of sorts) in the "War on terror" or the "War on Islamic terror" and from what I've read recently, there are a number of clerics who are demanding sharia law in all of Russia. If I am not mistaken Russia has somewhere around 10-15 million Muslims within her borders, which means there is an ample population base to provide support for a massive Islamic insurgency/guerilla movement.

[quote="GarryB"]

The Cold war was not a war against communism as depicted in the west... otherwise China would have become the main enemy and Russia would have been built up to counter them... the reality is that Russia was the enemy because it has the potential to be a real rival and a real threat... even today and that is what the west is still fighting for... open up their markets so the big powerful western companies can go in and take everything over... in China it is 1.5 billion consumers that has the western companies mouths watering... in Russia it is the oil and gas and metals etc etc.

My views on the Cold War are very controversial (in regards to mainstream America) and get heavy into conspiracy. Basically they can be summarized thusly...

The Cold War was basically a scam operated so that the Western nations could distract their population with the ever-present threat of "the enemy over there, behind the iron curtain" and keep the focus externally while the leaders and interlopers who hijacked control of the Western nations flooded them with third world immigrants, mostly from Africa, Asia, the Islamic nations, and (in the case of the USA) Central America, in addition to consolidating the various Western nations into soft-tyranny police states with draconian "hate speech" laws, civil asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain abuses, gun control, etc.

The domestic agendas pursued in the various Western nations required that the focus of the citizens be directed elsewhere lest they realize what was going on in their respective nations. The Cold War served well as it kept them on a constant war footing.

Anybody who objected to the expansion of police/CIA/FBI powers in the USA would be accused of weakening the nation and leaving it open to communist/Soviet infiltration, when the communists were already here and already in power, occupying the media, finance, academia, the State Department, etc... FDR, Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins, etc, these were the communists who ruled the 1930s and 1940s.

Lattimore, the main USA policy "expert" in China and a top official in the Pacific War Office in the early 1940s, supposedly working on behalf of the Nationalist Chinese with Chiang-Ki-Shek, wrote that the best thing America could do for China was to let the Soviets/Stalin have it and let them help set up a government. He also wrote extensively in favor of Mao and referred to Mao as "the best hope for peace and prosperity in China." He also passed on information about Nationalist troop movements to Mao. The Nationalists demanded the USA recall him but the USA said that they had to deal with Lattimore or else they would withdraw aid for the Nationalists.



The Cold War also served as a sort of an "experiment" or a "test comparison" to see which model of tyranny worked better for Europeans (be they Europeans in Europe or Europeans in America, Australia, Canada, etc).

The gulag, boot on the throat, all-powerful police state with KGB able to take you away in the middle of the night, Soviet model...

Or the decadent hedonist culture of degeneracy and unrestrained materialism/consumerism in the West, where money becomes God and people voluntarily censor themselves because they know that speaking out (on certain issues) will result in economic hardship via loss of their job and loss of access to government provided money/benefits.

Additionally, in the Western model, massive social pressures are brought to bear to get people to censor themselves, effectively eliminating the need for a KGB because people essentially police themselves to avoid being ostracized by the 98-99% of the nation that does what the TV/media tells them to do and what they assess that society experts them to do.



Basically it was 1984 (Soviets) vs Brave New World (West). The wall didn't come down because the East was weak and was giving up, the Wall came down because the elites assessed that the situation was such that the Cold War was no longer needed. The Western model of unrestrained materialism and consumerism won out as the preferred path to tyranny and total control.


Keep in mind that the USA propped the USSR up with repeated grain ships throughout the 1970s, which is something that shouldn't happen if there was really a "Cold War" between "mortal enemies." These grain shipments were organized by an elite banking family based in the USA, known as the Warburgs.

I don't even want Canadian soldiers training in the USA, I also do not approve of the Luftwaffe airbase that the Germans get to operate in the Southwestern United States.

The prospect of having several thousand VDV in the Midwestern/Western USA is not particularly inviting.

I'd rather they not be here.

Well the US has over a quarter of a million soldiers based overseas... do you think all those countries actually want US troops there?

As you have found governments rarely ask their populations before such things... there are more than a few Germans who really don't want US troops in Germany... or the nuclear weapons they have there either.

On another note, why can't the USA just share the ABM with Russia so Russia doesn't have to worry about rogues obtaining a lost/misplaced/retired warhead and slapping it on a missile they obtain from somewhere.

In public talks the US and NATO invited Russia to join the ABM system in Europe but when the talks actually started the US side said it didn't object but Poland could object to Russia visiting with prearranged consent from the Poles. Of course the Poles wanted the system based in their country as a raised middle finger to Russia so there was no chance of them agreeing to let them even visit... but that was system one.

With the new system they talked about cooperation but it turned out when they sat down what they actually meant was for each side to build completely different and separate systems and share data...

Not really what was promised.

If NATO is going to expand east why don't they invite Russia to join NATO?

The obvious reason is because NATO is all about containing Russia and very little else.

Chechnya is basically a "front" (of sorts) in the "War on terror" or the "War on Islamic terror" and from what I've read recently, there are a number of clerics who are demanding sharia law in all of Russia.

Clerics will always make stupid unreasonable demands... that is why they get to wear the funny clothes and don't have real jobs.

If I am not mistaken Russia has somewhere around 10-15 million Muslims within her borders, which means there is an ample population base to provide support for a massive Islamic insurgency/guerilla movement.

Except that most people don't want sharia law... after all an eye for an eye and everyone is blind.

Catholic priests suggest condoms should not be used and there is no need for contraception... people should just not have sex except when they are married and only for the purposes of starting or extending their families... and that isn't going to happen either.

The Cold War was basically a scam operated so that the Western nations... <snip>

The only problem I have with such theories is that it assumes the west is that organised and responsive... personally I think it is all much more simple than that... the west hated Russia because it had hated it all those years before and that is what it was used to doing. They hated it before because it was an imperial power that threatened the hegemony of the west in several critical places like China and India... Imagine if the Russians rolled into China and offered them a better deal for their silk and opium? Or if Russia rolled into India?

Looking back we can see how preposterous such an idea might be but I have a book written in the 1870s by a British Naval gunner and he includes a whole chapter on the dangers of a Russian attack on India.

The huge irony is of course the West has interfered in Russia far more often than vice versa... including picking a side in their civil war and getting involved directly.

At the end of the day the west saw the Soviet Union as a potential viable alternative to the system that made them rich and powerful and they are not sure if that alternative system was adopted widely that they would remain rich and powerful so they fought it tooth and nail because nothing scares them more than poverty.

It is a weapon they wield with abandon... they will impose political and economic isolation on any country at the drop of a hat... wonder what would happen if some country did the same to them... imagine if Russia said that the US laws banning the import and sale of Russian made firearms violates the idea of free trade and that they will ban all exports of titanium to the US until they change their laws. According to WTO rules you are not allowed to ban or restrict goods just because they were not made locally...

The Cold War also served as a sort of an "experiment" or a "test comparison" to see which model of tyranny worked better for Europeans (be they Europeans in Europe or Europeans in America, Australia, Canada, etc).

It was hardly a fair test. What it showed was that even a large country with lots of resources can be broken if it has to build an army to fight the whole world while at the same time internationally isolated and economically blockaded. The growth of Communist China shows that the communist system is useful to the west as a source of cheap consumer items because of low wages and no labour laws... just bribe the local official and any problems go away.

In fact I remember in the early 1990s a lot of western companies were drooling over the large numbers of skilled people in the eastern block they could pay low wages to... but what actually happened was that all the production assets in the Soviet Union were sold... and only the former communists had the power and money to buy everything and they did what anyone who bought a worn out factory did... sack three quarters of the workforce immediately, pinch their retirement funds sell off the obsolete equipment and then sell the factory to someone else. Easy way to make money. Leaves terrible wreckage behind... which is why there are so many Russian billionaires in Britain because if they went back to Russia they would either be in Jail or lynched.

Keep in mind that the USA propped the USSR up with repeated grain ships throughout the 1970s, which is something that shouldn't happen if there was really a "Cold War" between "mortal enemies." These grain shipments were organized by an elite banking family based in the USA, known as the Warburgs.

The grain wasn't free... just like the lend lease wasn't free.

“Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China”: A Re-Cap
By Stephanie Spies

On Friday, the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing entitled “Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China: Understanding Impacts to the United States” which featured testimony from Dr. Mark Schneider, Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, Mr. Richard D. Fisher, Jr. Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, and Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, the Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. These three experts discussed the status of Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization efforts and how these programs should affect U.S. nuclear weapons decisions, especially in light of impending budget cuts. While these three experts all held slightly different views on the likely dangers of Russian and Chinese modernization, they agreed on one overriding principle: the U.S. must maintain a strong nuclear deterrent in order to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear conflict.

Dr. Schneider, the first to testify, discussed the details of Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization efforts and the significant dangers they pose for the United States. Relying on a variety of unclassified documents, he argued that both countries are modernizing every element of their strategic triads, increasing the numbers, types, and roles of their nuclear weapons capabilities. Russia has modified its SLBMs and ICBMs, increased its number of MIRV’d weapons, and has begun development of a new heavy ICBM dedicated to a counterforce nuclear mission against U.S. ICBMs, a troubling yet legal advancement given New START’s numerical limits. China, meanwhile, has developed or is in the process of producing two new ICBMs, a new ballistic missile submarine, and potentially a new bomber, although the secret nature of their program makes it difficult for the U.S. to know the status of these projects. According to Schneider, that these two countries are experimenting with new types of nuclear weapons, including testing low-yield nuclear weapons, is “undeniable”.

In detailing these modernization programs, Dr. Schneider emphasized the similarity of Russian and Chinese nuclear doctrines and their divergence from U.S. nuclear policy. Both countries appear to be increasing not only the numbers of, but also the roles that nuclear weapons play in their respective security policies. Although China has a “no first use” of nuclear weapons policy, it is not “real” and commits the government to nothing according to Schneider, who referred to classified Chinese documents which discuss adjusting the country’s nuclear threshold. However, Schneider’s greater concerns were with the advancement of Russian nuclear capabilities and doctrine. Not only does Russia have more nuclear weapons than the U.S., but it possesses the capability to attack a variety of targets that the U.S. cannot, he cautioned. Moreover, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in conducting warfare, and in fact classifies the first use of nuclear weapons as a method of “de-escalating conflicts”. According to Schneider’s testimony, these advancements in Russian nuclear strategy pose real threats to the U.S. and to strategic stability.

Mr. Fisher’s subsequent testimony, focusing on Chinese modernization programs, also discussed the troublesome differences between U.S. and PRC views on the role and utility of nuclear weapons. Now is not the time to reduce U.S. deterrent capabilities in Asia, he warned, because perceived U.S. weakness may embolden Chinese adventurism and risk-taking, as empirically demonstrated in Vietnam, Korea, and India. Referring to the Chinese government’s continuous rejections of strategic stability discussions with the U.S., Fisher argued that the U.S. should use history as a guiding force in determining Chinese intentions and predicting the country’s likely actions. Not only should the U.S. presume Chinese deception in nuclear planning and policies, he explained, but it should question whether the PRC will be satisfied with only a small nuclear force if its ambitions are to build a global power projection capability. Therefore, Fisher set forth a series of Chinese advancements the U.S. must attempt to understand or monitor, including the rate of deployment for new ICBMs and SLBMs with multiple warheads, growth in regional missile forces, and progress on national missile defense and space warfare capabilities. The most significant threat from China, however, is its promotion of a proliferation network through abetting North Korean, Iranian, and Pakistani nuclear capabilities, all of which represent regimes that have links to terrorist networks. The U.S. must convince China to roll back this “network of dictatorships with nuclear weapons”, Fisher cautioned, or face a significant deterrence challenge and risk of nuclear terrorism.

Dr. Lewis’s testimony, although equally insistent on the necessity of stable deterrence for strategic stability, emphasized the risks of unintentional and accidental nuclear use in the current security environment. All states, he argued, are replacing their delivery vehicles, but none are producing new nuclear warheads. Given the current international moratorium on nuclear testing, the U.S. is still best equipped to maintain its stockpile, despite Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, Lewis explained. Although there are no scenarios for the intentional use of nuclear weapons against the U.S., he purported, the U.S. must continue to pay attention to effective and stable deterrence. Russian fears of a U.S. decapitating first strike explain Russian nuclear and political behavior, while Chinese intentions to place its forces on alert in a crisis are intended as a signal to U.S. policymakers. This situation, he cautions, makes miscalculation or unauthorized nuclear use, especially in a crisis, more likely.

When asked by Chairman Turner to discuss the potential impacts of U.S. nuclear cuts as a result of deficit reduction, each expert had a different concern. Schneider feared that Russia will use its nuclear weapons to achieve political clout, and thus may box itself into a corner in its pursuit of great power status, potentially resulting in a destabilizing security environment. Fisher, meanwhile, discussed the possibility that substantial reductions in U.S. nuclear warheads could allow China to increase its nuclear weapons numbers, in conjunction with missile defense and space-based capabilities, so that it could undermine the U.S. ability to deter Chinese aggression, particularly on its periphery. Again referring to China’s empirical willingness to take risks and strike with little warning when a crisis presents itself, Fisher argued that a “small drawdown” in the U.S. could embolden Chinese temptations. In particular, he referenced Chinese considerations of an arms sale to Gadhafi because the U.S. had decided to take a back seat in supporting Libyan rebels.  Prior U.S. “concessions” on nuclear issues, such as New START ratification and Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review, have not prompted Russia and China to make similar reductions in their nuclear arsenals or modernization efforts, Fisher indicated, increasing the likelihood that their modernization efforts will continue in the face of nuclear funding cuts. While Lewis did not commit to such a strong statement about the effects of budget reductions, he did defend the option of modifying existing nuclear capabilities for security requirements when they arise. The U.S. should not pursue nuclear modernization like Russia and China, who are continually re-manufacturing their nuclear capabilities, he argued, but it should maintain an effective nuclear deterrent.

The most controversial issue discussed between the three experts, however, was whether the U.S. could adequately detect Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization, particularly new testing. Dr. Lewis claimed that the current moratorium on nuclear testing gives the U.S. an advantage in modernizing its stockpile, as countries like China are constrained in putting multiple warheads on their missiles without violating the treaty . Fisher, however, argued that not only will China try to mask its tests if it can, but it also may have different standards for testing than the U.S., thereby employing techniques such as computer simulation rather than conducting tests that can be detected, even if such tests may be better for ensuring a weapon’s effectiveness. Similarly, Schneider disagreed with Lewis’ contention that the moratorium constrains Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, referencing reports and intelligence that indicate these two countries have been testing. He also insisted that there are currently significant limitations on the U.S. ability to detect tests.

Fisher and Schneider in particular voiced concerns when Representative Lamborn, a member of the subcommittee, asked about the implications of a recently discovered Chinese underground tunnel, discussed in a new DTRA report, used to transport nuclear weapons and potentially launch them from different locations without being detected. Schneider warned that this discovery will make efforts to find and verify China’s nuclear forces even more difficult, as its mobile missiles are inherently hard to locate, and may allow the PRC to increase the size of its stockpile without U.S. knowledge. Fisher confirmed this fear, referencing the potential for a Chinese nuclear triad by the end of the decade. Because China’s nuclear program is already somewhat opaque and secret in nature, as opposed to Russia’s more public emphasis on its nuclear doctrine, this tunnel may further complicate U.S. efforts to monitor Chinese nuclear modernization.

However, even if this modernization is increasing and U.S. budget cuts were to accelerate it, as Fisher suggests, can the U.S. offer a solution? The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. As all three experts testified, Chinese and Russian motivations for nuclear modernization go beyond desires to match the U.S., and thus cannot be reversed by U.S. policy alone. While Fisher explained that China’s ultimate desire for regime survival dictates its nuclear policy, Schneider described Russian aspirations for great power status as the basis for its modernization efforts. Lewis, meanwhile, argued that although Russia and China desire to have the same technological capabilities as the U.S., they also are “paranoid” about one another, a sentiment which is reflected in their nuclear policies. While Chinese modernization seems to be somewhat Russia-oriented, he contended, Russia seemed frightened by the news of the Chinese underground tunnel, illustrating the “depth of their mutual hostility”. Although it is impossible to determine the intentions of these two countries without access to classified information and government or military officials, these statements seem to demonstrate motivations for nuclear modernization that the U.S. does not and cannot affect. While cutting the U.S. nuclear weapons budget may be costly or unwise for other reasons, as discussed in an earlier post, the argument that new cuts will embolden Russian and Chinese modernization seems misplaced. The U.S. can and should maintain nuclear deterrence in order to preserve strategic stability with these two countries, especially if miscalculation or an accident were to occur in a crisis, but its investments in nuclear weapons do not appear to dictate Russian and Chinese modernization efforts and their perceptions of deterrence to the extent that some U.S. policymakers may believe.  

Stephanie Spies is a research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues. The views expressed above are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Strategic and International Studies or the Project on Nuclear Issues

http://csis.org/blog/nuclear-weapons-modernization-russia-and-china-re-cap

The US's conventional capabilities are ignored by the US when discussing balance with Russia and China.

It is like the guy with the machine gun complaining that the other two guys have got bayonetes fixed to their rifles and that if they are not careful someone might get jabbed.

I also find it amusing that the US fears that if Russia or China perceive they might have a nuclear superiority that they might start throwing their weight around in a colonial like way... like the US does now... talk about fearing your own reflection.

Its interesting also that US by all means possible want to believe Russia and China and China and India and etc

will point their nukes at each other and while such scenario will evolve they will hold upper hand of morality by democracy and freedom

speech.

It makes me very suspicious why the US is not particularly happy when the Russian Federation have showned that they would no longer re-new the Nunn-Lugar Agreement. And in some articles I have read the American side have stated that Russian tactical nukes are destabilizing and that the creation of a new liquid fueled missile is unnecessary. Makes me wonder why the Americans gets a little noisy when it comes to the nuke arsenals of other countries.

Another interesting point in the article is Russian and Chinese suspicion of one another, yes their is still some issues however compared to the adaptability of foreign policy the Russians and Chinese see a far greater benefit in maintaing a good diplomatic not to mention a ever expanding trade relation that is not coupled with the threat of currency manipulator title which the US gov't seems to want to put on China. Besides Russia and China knows how to separate business and politics which is essential. Besides as long as Russia and China maintain a credible nuclear deterrent the relationship is stable.

Like any spoiled brat... it is not enough to get everything you want, when you want it... being able to prevent the other kids from having what you have is very important too.

The main reason the Russians want to end the program is that it gives far too much secret data to the Americans while America is not obliged to divulge the same information to Russian regarding their own weapons.

The purpose of US military complex is always the same, when they want more money from the tax-payers, chieftly US middle-class, they invent threat, in order to be diffused by US media. The goal here is to increase and to upgrade the US militay nuclear stock atomic weaponneries, that is around more than 2500 nuclear warheads. Meanwhile China is not more than few hundreds nuclear warheads -about Russia, I don't know-.
The problem nowadays, is more critical for US than it seems, US simply could not afford these new expenses. US system is in total bankrupcy. This is not the case for Russia and China.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1488574/china-and-russias-nuclear-submarines-capable-of-striking-american-bases-says-u-s-navy/#PDaYt8XaU4SfzuHa.99

China And Russia’s Nuclear Submarines Capable Of Striking American Bases Says U.S. Navy

China and Russia’s nuclear submarine capabilities have been increasing rapidly in recent years and the U.S. Navy is already assessing how it will change its strategy based upon recent advancements in technology. A U.S. Navy Admiral is also warning that both the Chinese and Russian navy are becoming capable of striking American bases.

In a related report by The Inquisitr, the Russian military successfully tested a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from the Russian nuclear submarine the Vladimir Monomakh. The test nuclear missile flew from the White Sea near Russia’s border with Finland and hit its target nearly 3,500 miles away on the Kamchatka peninsula north of Japan. This was considered significant since the Bulava ICBM has suffered repeated glitches in the past which lead to launch failures. Vladimir Putin also discussed a 2016-2025 Russian nuclear weapons modernization program focused on creating a “guaranteed nuclear deterrent.”

Navy Vice Adm. Michael Connor made a comparison to the Cold War when discussing recent world events, but also seemed to indicate that China was a potential threat instead of just Russia.

“The Soviet Union devolved into Russia but they kept their nuclear capabilities,” Connor said. “They are now re-growing those capabilities and others. As they re-grow, we find that modern Russia appears to have some aspirations both territory-wise and influence-wise that are reminiscent of the way they behaved when we had the Soviet Union. The world has become multi-polar and we have competition for global influence and power from a rising China — which is also very much on our mind. The Chinese have had ballistic missile submarines in some form for a while. Their pace has accelerated and they have several nuclear ballistic missile submarines and are continuing to build more.”

The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) believes the Chinese Navy is now “increasingly capable of striking targets hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland” and the deployment of the Jin SSBN “would mark China’s first credible at-sea-second-strike nuclear capability.” ONI even believes China’s nuclear ICBM aboard the new submarine would “enable the Jin to strike Hawaii, Alaska and possibly western portions of CONUS [continental United States] from East Asian waters.” According to Stars and Stripes, China’s nuclear weapons capabilities have also been augmented by the HK-6 bomber, a nuclear-capable aircraft with a range of about 2,000 miles, and the Dong Feng-41 ICBM, capable of launching multiple nuclear warheads.

An article from China Daily Mail reports that the Chinese language news site Qianzhan is claiming that “China’s reclamation in key areas in the South China Sea will enable China to set up naval and air bases for anti-submarine aircrafts and warships to contain US nuclear submarines.” In addition, when “China’s new nuclear submarines have been commissioned and communication technology improved, Chinese nuclear submarines will be able to operate near the U.S.” The article does note that since China’s nuclear weapons have long range capability some believe “it is not necessary for a Chinese strategic nuclear submarines to cruise near the U.S. to make American people nervous.”

The US seems unable to function without a serious threat to be afraid of and to work against... I guess it has been all these years of lowering the bar... Nazi Germany was a serious threat, and the Imperial Japanese became so when pushed into a corner with economic sanctions.

the Soviet Union was again a worthy adversary, but since the 50s things have become pathetic... the reunification of Korea was hardly a matter for the UN, and keeping Vietnam split apart was a waste of energy too... grenada, iraq, haiti, Serbia, Bosnia, cuba, most of the countries of the middle east... all minor situations which, if left alone would not have destabilised the west.

On the other hand interfering around the world in every little sht hole that has oil with bombing and the claim you are saving the world from factor x, has cost a lot of money and men and time, and not made the world safer or better or more moral... all the time telling your public you are a force for good in the world, when in fact you are an imperial power keeping your rich mates rich and their enemies at the muzzle of a gun... whether they fight for communism or nationalism.

If you don't believe me even today the richest people in Cuba tend to be the whitest.... similar situation in central and south america and north america too.

We know what the war on terror is all about, hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

par far wrote:We know what the war on terror is all about,  hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

They simply cannot go to war with Russia... As a US citizen, we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment *ready*, and most importantly - the public doesn't want war, more so against Russia. The nuclear shield is more relevant than ever, and I expect it to stay that way for years to come... If the US actually goes to war with Russia (they won't), you can bet your money that there will be a bad case of coup d'etat heading towards Washington.

Mike E wrote:

par far wrote:We know what the war on terror is all about,  hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

They simply cannot go to war with Russia... As a US citizen, we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment *ready*, and most importantly - the public doesn't want war, more so against Russia. The nuclear shield is more relevant than ever, and I expect it to stay that way for years to come... If the US actually goes to war with Russia (they won't), you can bet your money that there will be a bad case of coup d'etat heading towards Washington.

What do you think US has so many slaves for?

Like in Roman empire they will send stupid retarded slave countries to do their wars aka EU and NATO and even non NATO slaves are doing their Terrorist academies with annually thousands graduates.

WW3 is set in stone that is unavoidable.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

par far wrote:We know what the war on terror is all about,  hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

They simply cannot go to war with Russia... As a US citizen, we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment *ready*, and most importantly - the public doesn't want war, more so against Russia. The nuclear shield is more relevant than ever, and I expect it to stay that way for years to come... If the US actually goes to war with Russia (they won't), you can bet your money that there will be a bad case of coup d'etat heading towards Washington.

What do you think US has so many slaves for?

Like in Roman empire they will send stupid retarded slave countries to do their wars aka EU and NATO and even non NATO slaves are doing their Terrorist academies with annually thousands graduates.

WW3 is set in stone that is unavoidable.

I completely disagree... Any war with Russia, and you can expect a revolution here in the US. In fact, I doubt many troops would even fight! 

The best way for war to be stopped or avoided, is internally, and that is how it is here in the US... 

Not with nuclear weapons it isn't. People have been predicting WW3 ever since WW2, and guess what?

Any war with Russia, and you can expect a revolution here in the US.

That's what FEMA camps are for 

Asf wrote:

Any war with Russia, and you can expect a revolution here in the US.

That's what FEMA camps are for 

That's a completely loony joke of a conspiracy theory... I'm a "conspiracy theorist" myself, but FEMA camps went over the line... There really hasn't been much (if any) real evidence supporting the theory, for crying out loud they used cheap plastic coffin (holder things) as proof! 

Them can't jail the whole country anyway, and war is a great way to get citizens riled up for good or for bad.

Them can't jail the whole country anyway, and war is a great way to get citizens riled up for good or for bad.

All jokes aside, it's possible during martial law. Look at nazi germany. So you have to start a war and obtain martial rights in order to mobilize people, take extraordinary power, suppress any opposition, ect.

American are mostly ignorant and patriotic (no offence!). It's not that hard to tell about red bear is alive, begin a propaganda campaign, starting with somekind of a false flag operation, say, russians attack another civilian plane full of cute kittens. Jingoistic early-war patriotism wave will wash many brains, you will see crowds screaming 'Let's show those communist bastarts the taste of an apple pie! Don't tread on us!'. And after that - first casulities, hatred and vengeance will start to burn bright, goverment will start witchhunt and many will be sure they do a right thing sppressing off the dissension. Day by day the hysteria will grow until the goverment will take full control over society, and then it will be too late. Even if someone will choose to fight own goverment, they will be displayed as radicals, terrorists and treacherous bastartds, who should be stomped outright. And granpa's shotguns, civilian berettas and yugoslavian AKs aren't arguments against artillery and strike UAVs. Don't think the goverment would be stupid enough to loose control over national guard or regular army units - USA isn't Ukraine, after all.

So I think you believe in people's self-defence too much. It seems to be an american myth about armed nation defending it's rights, ect. Sorry, but russians have much more experience in civil wars (and I'm not happy about it), so I can tell you won't make it. You need a lot of organisation, like bolsheviks, and foreign money (again, like bolsheviks) or your own fatcats to support your. Or you just won't make it. Never. It isn't a movie.

Asf wrote:

Them can't jail the whole country anyway, and war is a great way to get citizens riled up for good or for bad.

All jokes aside, it's possible during martial law. Look at nazi germany. So you have to start a war and obtain martial rights in order to mobilize people, take extraordinary power, suppress any opposition, ect.

American are mostly ignorant and patriotic (no offence!). It's not that hard to tell about red bear is alive, begin a propaganda campaign, starting with somekind of a false flag operation, say, russians attack another civilian plane full of cute kittens. Jingoistic early-war patriotism wave will wash many brains, you will see crowds screaming 'Let's show those communist bastarts the taste of an apple pie! Don't tread on us!'. And after that - first casulities, hatred and vengeance will start to burn bright, goverment will start witchhunt and many will be sure they do a right thing sppressing off the dissension. Day by day the hysteria will grow until the goverment will take full control over society, and then it will be too late. Even if someone will choose to fight own goverment, they will be displayed as radicals, terrorists and treacherous bastartds, who should be stomped outright. And granpa's shotguns, civilian berettas and yugoslavian AKs aren't arguments against artillery and strike UAVs. Don't think the goverment would be stupid enough to loose control over national guard or regular army units - USA isn't Ukraine, after all

Martial law? The US population would never let that happen, never-mind war with a country like Russia...

Most Americans are, but a large minority aren't... Despite their idiocy at times, the Right along with far-left and far-top (like myself) would be very opposed to such action. It seems plausible in theory, but "We the People" have had enough of this crap.... Many of see through the propaganda, the false-flags etc. The US would have a heck of a hard time controlling us, especially when we are armed... Our armed forces would never (many*) engage against citizens anyway.

Mike E wrote:

Asf wrote:

Them can't jail the whole country anyway, and war is a great way to get citizens riled up for good or for bad.

All jokes aside, it's possible during martial law. Look at nazi germany. So you have to start a war and obtain martial rights in order to mobilize people, take extraordinary power, suppress any opposition, ect.

American are mostly ignorant and patriotic (no offence!). It's not that hard to tell about red bear is alive, begin a propaganda campaign, starting with somekind of a false flag operation, say, russians attack another civilian plane full of cute kittens. Jingoistic early-war patriotism wave will wash many brains, you will see crowds screaming 'Let's show those communist bastarts the taste of an apple pie! Don't tread on us!'. And after that - first casulities, hatred and vengeance will start to burn bright, goverment will start witchhunt and many will be sure they do a right thing sppressing off the dissension. Day by day the hysteria will grow until the goverment will take full control over society, and then it will be too late. Even if someone will choose to fight own goverment, they will be displayed as radicals, terrorists and treacherous bastartds, who should be stomped outright. And granpa's shotguns, civilian berettas and yugoslavian AKs aren't arguments against artillery and strike UAVs. Don't think the goverment would be stupid enough to loose control over national guard or regular army units - USA isn't Ukraine, after all

Martial law? The US population would never let that happen, never-mind war with a country like Russia...

Most Americans are, but a large minority aren't... Despite their idiocy at times, the Right along with far-left and far-top (like myself) would be very opposed to such action. It seems plausible in theory, but "We the People" have had enough of this crap.... Many of see through the propaganda, the false-flags etc. The US would have a heck of a hard time controlling us, especially when we are armed... Our armed forces would never (many*) engage against citizens anyway.

Major BS, there is already Martial law in the US trained and forced upon several towns, police already gets militarized, after Boston Bombing False Flag they have been searching houses with APC colons without any warrant to search your house. The US is already beyond 1984, any day they can do what they want and there will be no bloody revolution to bring down this empire from within, US citizens are already zombified, as long they have junk food and TV they will not move a finger.