Russian Imperialism - It’s Back

[American Patriot]

Russian Imperialism - It’s Back
Cross Action News ^ | 8-12-08 | Michael Radu While it is still not clear whether it was Georgia that escalated the conflict first, or Russia through its local puppets and mercenaries who provoked Tbilisi, the basic fact remains that the fighting is taking place exclusively within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia. Despite the Western media’s persistent description of the Russian military in South Ossetia as “peacekeepers,” they are and have always been nothing but an occupation and invading force.


(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...

[eversman]

Thats all they know how to do. they are invaders, murderers, killers, occupiers, and oppressors. look who runs the place! they are all mobsters, KGB men, or mobsters who are KGB men. big surprise.



IVE SAID IT BEFORE, AND ITS WORTH SAYING AGAIN: RUSSIA IS STILL RUSSIA. its the same russia its ALWAYS been.


ev

[Luke]

Tic-toc, it is only a matter of time before the REAL SHTF! I am glad that TAA is around to keep informed. I still believe that RED China and Russia are in cahoots. My thoughts are that they will continue to supply Islamic Extremist to futher their goals

[Ryan Ruck]

Bingo!

[wallis]

I'm back and have a lot to catch up on. I feel like Dr. Kevin Burkoff (4400) being awakened from my self-imposed sanitarium, only I wasn't awakened by the Future but good ol' Mother Russia.

I see that all of the hydra heads of thought are back into play: Sino-Soviet cooperation; Cold War tactics, diplomacy, and obfuscation; oil control (especially since it is extremely profitable as a commodity); supporting terrorism; anti-Nato and anti-American sentiments; a return to nuclear blackmail (Poland) over the U.S. plan to install an anti-missile battery against Iran and rogue terrorist elements.

However, I want to pursue a different course. Being that Putin and his puppet Medvedev are of KGB ilk, and that the Soviet Union was highly adept at obfuscation, I want to look behind the "obvious," even if it is as sublime and ridiculous as, say, trying to influence the up and coming U.S. Presidential election.

[American Patriot]

However, I want to pursue a different course. Being that Putin and his puppet Medvedev are of KGB ilk, and that the Soviet Union was highly adept at obfuscation, I want to look behind the "obvious," even if it is as sublime and ridiculous as, say, trying to influence the up and coming U.S. Presidential election.

Several have suggested this. But, to be honest, I can't see why Putin would want to influence the election to have McCain win. McCain will nuke him. Obama will kiss him.

It would have been in Putin's best interest to not do ANYTHING at all.

Oh yeah, welcome back

[Aplomb]

This has been brewing for years and planned for at least a year as anyone can find from reading news and editorials that far back. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the US election. My guess is if the timing did have any little thing to do with our upcoming election, it was that Russia would show us that McCain would lead us into more war and so wussy Americans would vote for Obama. That backfired.

[American Patriot]

Defy us and we will crush you... Russia's warning
dailymail.co.uk ^ | 19th August 2008 | Will Stewart

Russia yesterday threatened to 'crush' anyone who dared to defy it, after moving missile launchers within range of Georgia's capital.

The provocative move throws down the gauntlet to Nato leaders meeting today in emergency session on the new Cold War crisis.

U.S. intelligence said the Kremlin had moved several SS-21 missile launchers into the rebel enclave of South Ossetia, putting them in range of Tbilisi.

The move allows Russia to pull out of Georgia proper as it has promised but punish Tbilisi at any moment at the push of a button.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev vowed a 'crushing response' if Georgia or anyone else dares to defy Moscow's will in the tinderbox Caucasus region. ...

Mr Medvedev was at his most hawkish since the conflict erupted, telling war veterans: 'If someone thinks they can kill our citizens, kill soldiers and officers fulfilling the role of peacekeepers, we will never allow this.

'Anyone who tries to do this will receive a shattering blow.'

His warning followed Russian threats to unleash nuclear weapons on Poland in a future conflict because Warsaw agreed to installations linked to America's defence shield.

Moscow has also indicated that it will arm its Baltic fleet with nuclear weapons.

Awarding medals to servicemen involved in the conflict in Georgia, Mr Medvedev insisted that Russia has always been 'a peace-loving nation'.

He added: 'The Russian, Soviet state has never started a war. But even the most peace-loving state should have an effective army.'

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[wallis]

Maybe I have lived too long. Or, maybe I'm just getting soft in the head. Maybe both.

I was highly interested in what Debka had to post (last night, my time). Russia is planning to give Syria and Kaliningrad the "dreaded" Iskandar surface missiles, which can be (emphasis on "can be") outfitted with NBC warheads. Also, Russia is beefing up its Baltic fleet.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are in heightened alert status, fearing that war is imminent.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but technically nuclear weapons have been around since 1945 (not counting the development phase). Only two such weapons have been used against a belligerant nation, although countless others have been detonated for research and development purposes.

For 63 years and counting, despite fingers on the triggers and loud threats of dire and imminent destruction, thus far no one has used a nuclear weapon against a state, legitimate or otherwise.

There are folks here that are far more knowledgeable in weapons systems that can back me up when I say that there are far more formidable weapons that have been used and can be used vice a nuclear weapon. If I may use the analogy of a "smart" weapon, which can be more or less controlled, then a nuclear weapon has got to be the "dumbest" weapon in anyone's arsenal. I've read some studies on the attempt to "control" a nuclear weapon by trying to concentrate its wrath in one direction, but I doubt anyone has been successful. A nuclear weapon is "directionless," meaning that it doesn't care what it destroys, where it destroys, who is friend or foe, or the aftermath of its destruction.

Stalin is quoted as saying that the nuclear bomb is just a "big bomb." I believe that he was obfuscating. By underscoring the nuclear bomb, I feel that he salivated over having one (translate many). But using them? What good is using a bomb that is going to leave a scorched earth for decades? Not a good idea if one is trying to promote Lebensraum, whether it's physical occupation or converting people to an idea.

Besides, there are a great many weapons systems already in place that can (and does) create terror in the hearts of the common people. So, I believe that this nuclear blackmail scare is masking the threat of using more destructive, punitive tools at hand.

Terrorism comes to mind. Which is scarier? A multi-mega bomb that is guaranteed to incinerate you (after which you don't really care) or terrorism that could bring your high technicological way of life to its knees. Which is worse? That after you emerge from your highly effective bomb shelter to realize that you have a new pollution problem to deal with or now living in a police state revoking all of the freedoms we take for granted under the excuse of rooting out terrorism in all forms (to be defined by whoever is currently in charge)?

The Russians are not stupid. They just seem to acting this way because the world has become accustomed to their stupid bullying tactics, the thumping on the breast like so many great apes exhibiting their strength. They know that the West, for example, have weapons systems that can eliminate any ground and air threat with great precision. What the West has not yet developed is an effective anti-terrorist weapon, so that while machines are killing both people and machines, it is the human weapon that is knocking out power facilities, poisoning the water supply, creating panic in the streets, and disrupting government processes.

The key, in my opinion, to the current rhetoric is very similar to our response in the past. "Bring it on. You drop one; I'll drop ten. You kill one of mine, I'll kill a thousand of yours. You ready to begin?"

[Ryan Ruck]

There are folks here that are far more knowledgeable in weapons systems that can back me up when I say that there are far more formidable weapons that have been used and can be used vice a nuclear weapon. If I may use the analogy of a "smart" weapon, which can be more or less controlled, then a nuclear weapon has got to be the "dumbest" weapon in anyone's arsenal. I've read some studies on the attempt to "control" a nuclear weapon by trying to concentrate its wrath in one direction, but I doubt anyone has been successful. A nuclear weapon is "directionless," meaning that it doesn't care what it destroys, where it destroys, who is friend or foe, or the aftermath of its destruction.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in weapons, merely an enthusiast of militaria, but I'll have to disagree with labeling a nuclear weapon a "dumb" weapon.

I, personally, find it to be a very multifaceted weapon.

• It can be used as an EMP of varying strength ranging from far reaching with a high yield/high altitude detonation to somewhat localized in effect with a much lower yield/lower altitude detonation.
• It can be used as an area denial weapon by choosing to either use a ground burst detonation to spread fallout or "salting" the weapon with cobalt to make the radioactive effects very long lasting.
• It can be used to destroy hard targets such as silos and bunkers with ground bursts and/or ground penetrating warheads.
• It can be used to destroy soft targets with minimal effort, manpower, and material via air bursts.
• They can be radiation enhanced to kill all living creatures rather than destroying structures.
• Various effects can be achieved simply by increasing or decreasing the yield as well as increasing or decreasing the altitude. Doing so has mathematically predictable results depending on height/yield combination (I have an old nuclear effects calculator to prove this).

The part where it is mathematically predictable goes very far in proving that it is far from a dumb and uncontrollable weapon.

I would argue that a true dumb and uncontrollable weapon would be either chemical or biological in nature. Though somewhat less so with chemical weapons but, definitely bioweapons whose effects are intrinsically unpredictable (biologicals can evolve and mutate).

I will agree with the last part of your statement that nuclear weapons don't discriminate but, that doesn't necessarily make them "dumb". It just makes them a different type of weapon. Just as I wouldn't use a 10lb. sledge to drive nails nor use a claw hammer to tear down a skyscraper, I wouldn't use a nuclear weapon to perform a surgical strike on a single building in a civilian population center nor would I use a single laser guided bomb to destroy a carrier strike group.

What good is using a bomb that is going to leave a scorched earth for decades? Not a good idea if one is trying to promote Lebensraum, whether it's physical occupation or converting people to an idea.

That isn't always the case with nuclear weapons. As pointed out above, with modern and efficient weapons, nuclear fallout can be highly minimized by using air burst weapons to prevent fallout from being created while at the same time causing widespread and serious destruction.

Also, even with older weapons, think of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They began to be rebuilt only a couple years (I believe 1949) after they were destroyed. Obviously both are major metropolitan areas today.

As a result of the copious testing we did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s we learned a LOT about nuclear weapons and their effects. This information has been published but, has become "lost" especially since the Cold War "ended". I've compiled quite a bit of the originally published information myself (books, Civil Defense material, etc.) and it is all very informative and quite definitive. Rick just posted a fair amount of info in the Global Thermonuclear War thread. There is a lot of FUD surrounding nuclear weapons (I chalk that up mostly toward tactics used by Communists, i.e. Communist Goal 1. "U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war." and Communist Goal 2. "U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.") that can easily be dispelled by researching how these weapons really work.

[American Patriot]

I am no "expert" in weapons either. I'm a kind of "know-it-all" as some people like to call me. In real life, I'm a pretty smart guy, and I know a whole lot of crap, that is totally useless to anyone for anything other than trivia.

But, I'll agree with Ryan on most of his comments.

"Dumb" weapons are very simply those that can't be "controlled" in some aspect once set loose.

Chemical and biological weapons CAN NOT be controlled once you release them.

Bullets are "dumb". They go in the direction you aim them so they are only as "smart" as the targeting system (you in this case).

Nuclear weapons mounted on rockets/missiles that can be launched, but not controlled via radar, gps or some other control system is obviously going to land where ever it lands. However, I will say that near every weapon system we have that we launch (the US I mean) has some kind of control system to determine where the item will land.

When it comes to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles - they are controlled weapons. They are actually rockets that fly into space and have guidance systems that will allow them to track and fall after re-entry into the atmoshere exactly, within a few feet of where they want it to hit.

I get your point though that once detonated, there's no "control". That's true with any weapons.

I think we consider things like nuke, chemical and biological to be "weapons of mass destruction" BECAUSE they are not "controllable" after they are released. Destruction of living tissue takes place long after the release of biological and radiological material. Chemical tends to dissipate after a few hours.

Note that Richard Fleetwood has a set of disks that contain a massive amount of data on doing things like building fallout shelters and so forth, you can contact him via the "Survival Ring". He's a good friend of mine so tell him I sent you in his direction. Maybe he'll mail you a disk hehe.

[wallis]

Well, said. Gentlemen. Thank you.

[Aplomb]

Regarding the US election:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_9563288.htm

Poll: Obama's lead over McCain declines by half

Special Report: U.S. presidential election 2008


WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead over his Republican rival, John McCain, has declined by half, according to a poll released on Wednesday.


The CNN poll of polls showed that Obama only has a slim lead of 3 percentage points over McCain, at 46 to 43 percent, compared to a high of 8 points he had in mid of July.



CNN senior political researcher Alan Silverleib attributed the decline to "a renewed focus on foreign policy" after the crisis between Russia and Georgia, and McCain's "willingness to launch more aggressive attacks against Obama on issues such as off-shore drilling."


The poll combined three national surveys from Gallup, Quinnipiac and LA Times/Bloomberg.


However, the downturn is expected to cease since Obama will more media attention starting this week as he announces the running mate and officially get the party's presidential nominee.


"The big question now is whether Obama can successfully regain control of the campaign agenda as we head into the Democratic convention," Silverleib said.