Thanks biden and harris , or who ever is really in charge . ICBM's are really a step up .
Printable View
Thanks biden and harris , or who ever is really in charge . ICBM's are really a step up .
Executing the Navigation Plan
This Navigation Plan drives toward two strategic ends: readiness for the
possibility of war with the People’s Republic of China by 2027 and enhancing
the Navy’s long-term advantage. We will work towards these ends through two
mutually reinforcing ways: implementing Project 33 and expanding the Navy’s
contribution to the Joint warfighting ecosystem.
https://www.navy.mil/Leadership/Chie...-NAVPLAN-2024/
Not ICBM's, Russia is launching IRBM's (Intermediate Range) but yes, definitely a step closer to Dubya Dubya 3.
Same difference , just the range . They still have MIRV that are nuc capable , which is the point they were making .
You have to wonder if Putin is that crazy or not. I just don't know. I've heard a lot of rumors about him but I don't put much stock in rumors. I do understand the Russian paranoia. They want a buffer between them and their "enemies" even though they are the ones creating the enemies in the process of establishing it.
A wounded and isolated Russia remains dangerous. Russia’s illegal and unprovoked
invasion of Ukraine drew global condemnation and prompted Finland and Sweden to
join NATO. On the battlefield, however, Russia has demonstrated operational learning,
adapting technologically and tactically to Ukrainian innovations. Moscow, Beijing,
Tehran, and Pyongyang have strengthened their linkages and are actively targeting
the U.S., our Allies, and our partners in the information domain. Damage to undersea
pipelines and cables underscored how seabed infrastructure has become targetable.
Despite Black Sea losses, Russia’s fleets retain combat power in the High North and
Atlantic, Mediterranean, Baltic, and North Pacific. The Kremlin also holds the world’s
largest nuclear stockpile. We must continue to support credible deterrence alongside
Allies and partners in the Euro-Atlantic area.
Highly interconnected threats make peace brittle. Hamas’s 2023 assault on Israel
required a Navy presence across the Middle East to deter attacks by other Iranian proxies
and reduce the risk of a wider conflict. Emboldened by Hamas and armed by Iran, Houthi
forces target merchant shipping along the Bab al-Mandeb, a key chokepoint in the Red
Sea, exposing our Sailors to the most persistent hostile fire we have faced since World
War II. Iran, which is also supplying arms to Russia, further launched hundreds of drones
and missiles at Israel, bringing the entire region to the verge of war. These events prove
how quickly the security environment can shift through seen and unseen linkages, and
how essential our Navy is to providing flexible response options to our Nation’s
decision-makers.
There is a lot more to the war than stated above . It was not unprovoked , Putin has the backing of his people , it is just where the fighting is at , not who really is involved . Nato did attack Russia with personal and missiles . Compare that to the Cuban missile crisis .
We could argue about the causes, but we can probably agree on the effects? :ugh:
I guess I missed that. When did NATO personnel attack Russia? Are you referring to Ukraine's use of American ATACMS? In any event I tend to agree with former Admiral Stavridis, who led the NATO Alliance in global operations from 2009 to 2013 in that it is not a bad thing to keep Russia tied up in Ukraine. Many complain about the billions of dollars in aid sent to Ukraine, and rightfully so but as a Chess player I tend to look several moves ahead and having a non-NATO country as a buffer between Russia and a NATO country such as Poland or Slovakia is not a bad thing. As for those concerned about the cost of supporting Ukraine, t'is a pittance if things get kinetic between Russia and NATO. At least American servicemen aren't dying in Ukraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob q
Everyone missed that because NATO has not attacked Russia and their invasion was unprovoked. Russia clearly started all of this whether by themselves or their proxies in Ukraine. I don't even think Putin has the backing of his people, they don't want war.
People don't understand how stretched thin Hitler was when he rolled up to the coast of France and stared at the UK. He's lost a LOT of men in the various Bliztkriegs and there was a question of whether the people would support any further war. At that point he hadn't completed the total domination of his population. It made him very skittish of a failed operation. The Kanalkampf was conducted in as an exploratory operation that allowed him to back out - "say nothing, act normal."
Putin has hung it all out. He's got pretty good control of information/propaganda but the populace know exactly what he is doing. He promised remuneration for fallen soldier's families and hasn't been able to go through with it. They say he has lost a million casualties up to this September. He's lost one third of his Navy to a country without a Navy! He is a superb political strategist and can knife fight with threats with the best. However, I'm beginning to wonder when will his populace have had enough?
Bob
As for Adolf and Seelowe, he fully expected Britain to accept the inevitable and come to terms in 1940, just as he had not expected her to declare war in 1939. He made no secret of his positive view of the British Empire and his willingness to further its continuance if he was given a free hand on the Continent.
Yes, he ignored the centuries old policy lately enunciated by Mackinder that Britain could not allow any one power to control the Continent without being in mortal danger, but Hitler's gambles had paid off so many times, so many supposed lines in the sand had been crossed with impunity, that he believed that line could be crossed also.
The irony was that his own desire to effectively make an ally of Britain was by no means shared by the vast majority of his subordinates, quite the reverse, and this was no doubt realized during the deliberations in Britain in 1940-41, that no matter how accommodating Hitler might profess to be, his views and policies would die with him, if they could be relied up on at all.
Adolf Galland recounts in his memoirs how when Hitler visited France in 1940 Galland made so bold as to ask Hitler face to face why they were fighting the British rather than Bolshevik Russia, to which Galland says, Hitler "quite took my breath away" by replying that he considered the inability "to reach an accommodation with England to be the greatest failure of my policy."
The panzer divisions etc. had suffered losses though combat and attrition, but the most important factor was that their morale and that of the entire Wehrmacht was high and growing higher every day. When it is sensed that victory is nearly in hand and the enemies are in disarray, great and exceptional efforts can be expected from an army.
As for the support of the German (and Austrian) people, after an unbroken string of successes their support had never been greater and probably reached it's apex with the fall of France. Remember the crowds in Berlin when Hitler and Goering appeared on the balcony after returning from Compeigne?
There was no need for the Hitler to "dominate" his population when the vast majority adored him and even his so-called opponents accorded him grudging respect for bringing Germany so high and so quickly. Post-war professions shouldn't fool anyone but those who want to be. The vast majority of any other population would feel exactly the same in their place I might add!
What the regime had failed to do was swiftly transition to a full war economy with full industrial mobilization; that only came much later under Speer, and was one of the fatal mistakes made.
The destruction of the USSR and communism in Europe was the idee fixe of the Nazis from their inception, practically their raison d'etre as without the threat of communism they could never have come to power. And after Britain failed to come to terms and Goering failed to gain control of the Channel, Hitler had the excuse to pursue the option he preferred: to crush the USSR and leave Britain with absolutely no alternative but coming to terms or defeat, naturally expecting that the former would be the likely result when the latter became inevitable.
One day the full Ironside diaries will be published, if they still exist, and the debates of 1940 will become more public, though the full story probably went up the chimneys of Whitehall long ago. ;)
The fog of war seems to be as thick as ever! ;)
You missed a lot because you have very little knowledge of what is really happening over there . NATO members launching Members missiles by Nato personal is not NATO ? As stated , look back at the Cuban missile crisis and what happened there . Do you even know any of the history of the region ? The 8 year long on and off civil war . You are getting your news from the same sources that covered up biden , said trump could not win and all the other stuff . You should see the real death ratio of Russian vs Ukrainian . What is happening there is not worth WW III or Nuc's to the US .Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
No Bob, I just don't make things up out of thin air. No one has seen what you claim because it hasn't happened. NATO launched no missiles against Russia. You are welcome to provide the time, date and location of where and when this happened and then we'll accept it.
The United States and possibly other NATO nations provided Ukraine with missiles to defend itself on its own territory. Biden last week gave them permission to launch them into Russia itself, which was a bad move, yet very typical of this administration.
I have as much information on what is going on there as you do, I just ignore the rantings of a few idiots that are handing out false information which you are not ignoring.
I also fully know the history of the region, which I already outlined a bit earlier. I am not getting my news sources from anyone that covered up Biden.
I agree that this is not worth WWIII and understand fully it never should have happened in the first place (Biden and before him Obama). Russia has been allowed to violate the Budapest Memorandum on numerous occasions and this cannot be allowed to stand or we will end up in WWIII.
But until you actually have facts showing NATO personnel being involved in this war, you are spreading false information.
It would be a negative for Putin to use NW's irradiating arable land for considerable time so would be a no brainer even a dirty bomb though less destructive does the same thing.
They are using hyperbaric bombs which are outlawed but Putin does not care what is worrying is N.Korea and China aiding Russia's campaign even with all types of freedom fighters going to the Ukraine to help these latter 2 aiding Russia are an issue.
With the new administration set to come in with you guys it will be interesting to see what happens based on the dialog he purportedly had on Hitler doing good things perhaps he was referring to the autobarns which were loosely meant for traffic but in reality for moving the army at high rates !
It may be that the US reduces or ceases to aid Ukraine which will have other countries stepping up the supply of arms as if not Russia will win because they do not care for casualties nor material losses just like in WWII with 20 million + lost.
Nope we will have to sit on the edge of our seats and watch, I've kept liquid iodine in the cupboard for ages.
No, the State Department and CIA along with Soros orchestrated a color revolution in Ukraine (2014). War started b/c American neocons wanted to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. If a nation is weakened and falls prey to internal strife, outsiders can buy the resources cheap. This is the model for Africa/Latin America. Remember Lindsey Graham in a moment of honesty admitted that the West had to deny the resources under Crimea from the Russians. Soros and the US State Dept (Herr Hitlery w/assistance of fellow neocon Victoria Nuland) and the CIA help stage the Orange Revolution (both organize color revolutions to promote regime change) that overthrew Yanukovich. Yushenko came to power briefly before being replaced by Poroshenko. It has not stopped inteferring with the affairs of Ukraine and noodling it towards aggravating Russia.
Lest we forget Soviet Premier Gorbachev was promised by Clinton that NATO would not move one inch east, implying that the former Warsaw Pact nations were to be a neutral buffer. Now all of them along with the Baltic States are members of the Warsaw Pact. The only exception is the former parts of Prussia that are now (P)Russian. The 2015 Minsk Accord/Agreement offered Russia assurances that Ukraine would remain neutral. Angela Merkyl later admitted that it was only done only to buy time for the West to pull Ukraine closer to its fold. There was a referendum of those disputed provinces/oblasts as to what nation they wanted to belong to. That was ignored by the US and Ukraine.
Then the Russian language was outlawed and no Russian music could be played. On top of that, there were over 30 bioweapons labs funded by the US in Ukraine. They were listed on the US State Department website but has since been cleaned up. Afterward a wholesale slaughter of ethnic Russians began.
But for the globalists both here and abroad and the American neocons, no one really wants war. Instead the West does FAFO. We are all at peril now b/c of the globalists and American neocons who are more than happy to fight to the last Ukrainian. Guess who has been buying Ukrainian farmland?
We just learned that Russia doesn't need to use nuclear weapons. They have Oreshnik, a hypersonic missile that can use kenetic energy to destroy things. Clean war!
It may have slipped a bit but Ukraine was not that friendly to the Jewish fraternity in WWII in fact pretty much sided with the N*zis.
AFAIK US also years ago developed a Neutron bomb same destructive blast & heat wave as a nuke with little or no radiation to worry about the area can be secured in a matter of minutes/hours following the detonation.
We dismantled our last Neutron bomb in 2011 after a long and contentious argument over them with our allies dating back to the Carter administration. Some felt that the idea of a nuclear weapon that only killed people was too "Dr. Strangelove-ish" and better to have weapons that killed people, destroyed cities, and irradiated the land for thousands of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Question re: the North Koreans. Were they voluntold by their Dear Leader? The benefit would be food from Russia to Korea, reduction of Korean debt to Russia if any, exchange of technology for X # of troops for Y duration. Anyone have insights?
Only thing I heard is they are not very effective. Several defected and several killed some Russian soldiers. How much of that is true, I have no idea. They can't be all that highly motivated.
I've heard stories that the North Korean soldiers are having a hard time identifying between Ukrainian and Russian soldiers because of the somewhat similar fatigues and are accidentally shooting the Russian soldiers is what I have read. Have no idea if that is true but was just in an article
Their families will suffer for their defection. Historically in the Soviet Union, if you were captured through no fault of your own and were cleared by SMERSH of any wrongdoing, you still carried a black mark on your record and if you wanted a job or promotion, could be passed up because of it. Even if your child was the star pupil of the greatest promise in the oblast, (s)he may not be accepted into any university because of your black mark. In Hitler's Germany, the family could be retaliated against if a soldier defected (or surrendered. Note: late in the war I don't think anyone could keep track anymore). Either Soviet or Nazi Germany, I'm sure Best Korea follows their treatment when it comes to modern deserters.
One thing we learned from the war is that drones play a huge role in modern warfare. We used drones for decades but not to the point where individual soldiers, artillery, AFVs and HQ are all vulnerable. I wonder why HAMAS or Hezbollah don't resort to drones (or are they)? I'm certain the Israelis do as they tend to have modern stuff. Why can't their patrol drones protect their merkavas like infantry are supposed to do for tanks?
I wonder if an EMF weapon disables drones or its controls?
As one Spartan king rhetorically asked when a machine of war was hauled out, "Where has the valor of man gone?"
(Modern answer: Behind some computer screen slipping a slurpee while he drones someone's arse).
Good question. I know the IDF has been installing Rafael's TROPHY active protection system on their tanks for some time now and have been collaborating on the Fire Weaver system which interconnects all tanks' TROPHY systems in an area to provide even greater protection. I haven't been keeping up as closely as I have in the past so I don't know how far this system has been developed but it probably negates the need for drones to protect their tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riter
Gaza, the Warsaw ghetto, same results, different murderers.....
[QUOTE=tiger1;544090]Gaza, the Warsaw ghetto, same results, different murderers.....[/QU OTE]
If you are insinuating that the Israelis are in any way, shape, or form the modern equivalent of the Nazis then decorum and forum rules prevent me from posting my opinion of you.
Boom went the thread.
Bob