Politics

[PARA45]

 

[PARA45]

 

[PARA45]

 

[PARA45]

 

[Boyd Brooks]

 

[Randy F]

View attachment 449501

My brother just went to see Jeff Dunham a couple of nights ago. He had Walter done up as Biden answering questions at a press conference. He said it was hilarious. I can imagine.

 

[PARA45]

jeff dunham turns Walter as President.Biden - Google Search

 

[fish hunter]

View attachment 449512

I heard he tested positive for the new Peterbuilt variant

 

[BourbonTrail]

View attachment 449512

 

[Vashper]

You see, I am not a supporter of the current president and have never voted for him, I also do not know the motives of his decisions and I have no insiders. The only thing is that I know the situation as a local resident, although an outside observer may well know most of this. And I can try to explain.

The USSR also did not plan an aggressive war against Europe. It is ridiculous to compare the combined military potential of Western Europe, the British Empire and the United States after the 2nd World War and almost completely ruined Russia, which lost almost 9 million soldiers and more than a thousand cities alone, having neither a strategic air fleet, nor nuclear weapons, nor allies, except Mongolia. The Warsaw Pact (1955) provided a legal basis for the deployment of Soviet troops rather than an increase in military power. In America, in my opinion, there was a far-fetched psychosis about the Soviet attack, when we didn't even have the means to do it. When Hogpatrol was hiding under the desk at school. Why this was done, I do not know, but I do not want to guess.
By the way, the USSR, as well as Belarus and Ukraine applied to join NATO in 1954, but it was rejected, which seemed to hint at the actual purpose of this organization.
And I would not say that we have had any military superiority since then. The most important thing is that we have never been in the first place in the development of industry, and this is the main thing in modern military affairs. In some narrow industries, perhaps, but only in narrow ones.

I really didn't understand this: “we were so concerned about the USSR's mobile MRV platforms that were essentially immune from retaliation“". Why expose platforms to retaliation if the missiles have already flown away? Or does it mean “preventive retaliation"? In Russian, this is called the "first strike". Yes, these platforms were well protected at that time.

As for the current situation, it is not safe. Does the US have a hypersonic missile? Perhaps not yet. This is a complex technology, both in aerodynamics and in control (the plasma layer shields radio signals). But the development of such missiles in the United States, I remember well, was reported during the invasion of Afghanistan, 20 years ago. I remember talking to someone on this topic that aviation hypersonic missiles, accurate and with great penetrating power, will be able to hit our missile silos in Siberia if the United States uses air bases in Central Asia. Perhaps the Americans simply frightened the Russians, then it happened, because they did not quite correctly, in my opinion, perceived the events in the post-Soviet space. But it's possible to do something.
No warheads? They can be done quickly. We did it in our time for 6 years from scratch, having nothing in a ruined country. And in the USA now there are 100 tons of plutonium alone, and lithium deuteride is enough.
You see, RedLeg, I'm not arguing because I'm a debater. It's just that in this case the picture is clear: The US is aggressively projecting military power towards Russia, and this is unacceptable and must be stopped before it gets worse. Persuasions “we don't mean anything bad” don't look convincing and there's no need, we're not trying to persuade a girl here.
It is worth taking off several rockets from Redzikovo. Who and how will prove that these are anti-missiles, and not missiles with nuclear warheads? In 3-4 minutes? I do not know who is so smart that you came up with this, but he is not quite smart. The only trouble is that wars usually start just not very smart people. It will be this (You know a little Russian?):

 

[Vashper]

As for Kenig, as we sometimes call Kaliningrad– this is just an example of a peripheral theater of military operations. But by the way, demands for the demilitarization of this area are constantly heard from the West. So, you can make demands on our troops on our territory, but you can't talk about American weapons on the territory of Eastern Europe.

About Ukrain.
There is a land corridor to the Crimea, it is called the "Crimean Bridge". A majestic structure and not cheap. Laying a corridor through Ukrainian territory in 2014 cost nothing, in any case it would be cheaper than the Crimean Bridge. But such a task was not set, as well as the task of annexing Ukrainian territory in general. This is easily verified: in the summer of the 14th year, construction of a bypass railway line began. The fact is that the main railway to the South, to Rostov and Sochi, captured a corner of Ukrainian territory, it was very inconvenient – on the way it was necessary to meet 2 times with Russian border guards, 2 times with Ukrainian ones. Special documents are not needed at the same time, except for the usual passport, but, for example, it was impossible to carry guns, my friends once got like that, returning from hunting from the south. That is, then, in the summer of 2014, it was decided that Eastern Ukraine north of the Seversky Donets River would remain Ukrainian. When I heard that a budget had been allocated for this construction, I immediately understood what was going on. Now this railroad has been built, it goes around the Ukrainian territory.
Since in 2014 Russia was still accused of having brought in troops, it would have been quite possible to really bring in troops and do whatever you want, because then there was essentially no Ukrainian army.
Most likely, the reason for this softness is that the Russian leadership - the president and then Prime Minister Medvedev - are lawyers. They always select a legal justification for their actions. Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine and had the right to a referendum. Donetsk and Lugansk were not republics. But who paid attention to these legal justifications?

I personally have a radical attitude about Ukraine. I don't like a regime that glorifies fascists and shoots guns at cities with millions. But hardly anyone cares what I don't like,, and I think that the main reason for the severity of the conflict is outlined above.

I do not know where the “right of nations to self-determination" came from at all, we do not write about it. They say that Lenin invented it, but isn't there too much blame on him?
In any case, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic has never been a mono-national state. Although the Ukrainian language was cultivated, only a quarter of the population used it 10 years ago. Although it is similar to Russian, and mutually intelligible, but it is difficult to read large texts in it, it is poor in terms, there is no fiction and scientific literature on it. And the real spread of the Ukrainian language was evaluated by the Gallup service 10 years ago, this is not my imagination. Now, perhaps, the situation has partly changed due to massive propaganda and the ban on the use of the Russian language.

 

[Red Leg]

You see, I am not a supporter of the current president and have never voted for him, I also do not know the motives of his decisions and I have no insiders. The only thing is that I know the situation as a local resident, although an outside observer may well know most of this. And I can try to explain.

The USSR also did not plan an aggressive war against Europe. It is ridiculous to compare the combined military potential of Western Europe, the British Empire and the United States after the 2nd World War and almost completely ruined Russia, which lost almost 9 million soldiers and more than a thousand cities alone, having neither a strategic air fleet, nor nuclear weapons, nor allies, except Mongolia. The Warsaw Pact (1955) provided a legal basis for the deployment of Soviet troops rather than an increase in military power. In America, in my opinion, there was a far-fetched psychosis about the Soviet attack, when we didn't even have the means to do it. When Hogpatrol was hiding under the desk at school. Why this was done, I do not know, but I do not want to guess.
By the way, the USSR, as well as Belarus and Ukraine applied to join NATO in 1954, but it was rejected, which seemed to hint at the actual purpose of this organization.
And I would not say that we have had any military superiority since then. The most important thing is that we have never been in the first place in the development of industry, and this is the main thing in modern military affairs. In some narrow industries, perhaps, but only in narrow ones.

I really didn't understand this: “we were so concerned about the USSR's mobile MRV platforms that were essentially immune from retaliation“". Why expose platforms to retaliation if the missiles have already flown away? Or does it mean “preventive retaliation"? In Russian, this is called the "first strike". Yes, these platforms were well protected at that time.

As for the current situation, it is not safe. Does the US have a hypersonic missile? Perhaps not yet. This is a complex technology, both in aerodynamics and in control (the plasma layer shields radio signals). But the development of such missiles in the United States, I remember well, was reported during the invasion of Afghanistan, 20 years ago. I remember talking to someone on this topic that aviation hypersonic missiles, accurate and with great penetrating power, will be able to hit our missile silos in Siberia if the United States uses air bases in Central Asia. Perhaps the Americans simply frightened the Russians, then it happened, because they did not quite correctly, in my opinion, perceived the events in the post-Soviet space. But it's possible to do something.
No warheads? They can be done quickly. We did it in our time for 6 years from scratch, having nothing in a ruined country. And in the USA now there are 100 tons of plutonium alone, and lithium deuteride is enough.
You see, RedLeg, I'm not arguing because I'm a debater. It's just that in this case the picture is clear: The US is aggressively projecting military power towards Russia, and this is unacceptable and must be stopped before it gets worse. Persuasions “we don't mean anything bad” don't look convincing and there's no need, we're not trying to persuade a girl here.
It is worth taking off several rockets from Redzikovo. Who and how will prove that these are anti-missiles, and not missiles with nuclear warheads? In 3-4 minutes? I do not know who is so smart that you came up with this, but he is not quite smart. The only trouble is that wars usually start just not very smart people. It will be this (You know a little Russian?):

View attachment 449521

I am not "debating" most of what I have written either. I was in a position to know our capabilities and the planning for the use of those capabilities in some detail. During the Cold War we did not have any war planning for offensive action against Russia. Our doctrine, our positioning, our tactical training, and our weapons design was geared toward a defensive battle in Europe. Indeed, when many of us deployed to Desert Storm, we were grateful for several months of delay to train for offensive combat - particularly at the operational level.

The Army and Navy hypersonic weapons are being developed and will be eventually deployed as conventional arms. That is not an opinion. Moreover, one can not simply create a nuclear warhead for such a weapon system in an afternoon - regardless of the plutonium stockpile. They will not represent a tactical nuclear threat to Russia, and as you should well know, all of Russia's critical command and control systems are immune to conventional strike.

It is probably worth noting that open source estimates place both nation's warhead counts at around 6,000 with around 1600 actively deployed by each country.

You should consider that the idea of the the United States is "aggressively projecting military power towards Russia" is nonsensical to someone of my background. I truly don't mean that in a rude way. It is just that it is impossible for me to understand how a Russian could draw that conclusion. Forty years ago we weren't much of a land threat to attack the Warsaw Pact when our NATO deployed force consisted of two Corps containing a total of six divisions, a couple of armored cavalry regiments, and couple of independent brigades. Total US forces in all services committed to West Germany was a little less than 250,000. Today, the US has a grand total of less than 50,000 of all services committed to all of NATO. The US Army no longer has any armor deployed in Europe. Not a single tank. I would hardly call that aggressively projecting military power toward Russia. And as I noted, we decommissioned all of our ground-based tactical nuclear weapons more than thirty years ago.

And of course both countries have negotiated about troop and weapons deployment in Europe. Standing down the Pershing II and the SS 20 intermediate range missiles was probably the most notable achievement in such negotiations during the Cold War.

The US military does indeed maintain a watchful eye on Russia because of its nuclear weapons. However, even NATO spends very little if any time wargaming conflict with Russia. We do encounter Russian weapons throughout our areas of critical international interest, but our strategic focus has shifted ever more toward Asia since the end of the Cold War.

 

[gillettehunter]

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Retired US Army Jack Keene makes a prediction

 

[Red Leg]

Retired US Army Jack Keene makes a prediction

One of my great mentors.

 

[PARA45]

 

[CoElkHunter]

One of my great mentors.

Very interesting perspective on the situation.

 

[gcbailey]

That should not be too hard for you to do, concerning how few consumer products are actually manufactured in the USA. Now USA brands that another story.



Its actually, Richement and not LVMH . And Chanel owns Holland & Holland (at least thats what Wikipedia says).

Not anymore! Beretta holdings purchased Holland and Holland late last year.

 

[Randy F]

 

[Vashper]

Well, that's great. In fact, I would be glad of NATO's peacefulness. And if that's the case, then fine. As I understand it, the only problem now is to fix it on paper and back up this agreement with substantive confidence measures (since there is no trust). As Reagan said in my opinion, "it's not intentions that matter, but opportunities," and he was right.