Politics

[Jfet]

Concerning watching combat videos on social media:

 

[Newboomer]

OK. So you can think about it from your russian prison cell for about the next ten years. You deserve it.

 

[JPmbogo]

Granted - we had no business being in 'Nam (made worse by the draft - LBJ was/is a war criminal if there ever was one) or Iraq. Nevertheless that hardly excuses Putin in this case. Although I will also concede that I understand his concerns over the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. Shades of the Cuban missile crisis, no?

 

[Red Leg]

Granted - we had no business being in 'Nam (made worse by the draft - LBJ was/is a war criminal if there ever was one) or Iraq. Nevertheless that hardly excuses Putin in this case. Although I will also concede that I understand his concerns over the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. Shades of the Cuban missile crisis, no?

The Cuban argument is used a lot.

The problem with it is one of equivalency. In the 1960's both the US and the Soviet Union had the economic and military power to declare and enforce exclusionary zones. What Putin apparently can't understand, but the world is coming to realize is that Russia is not the Soviet Union. Except for its nuclear weapons, this post-Soviet country of 140 million people and a GDP equal to Texas has neither the economic nor military power to enforce an exclusionary zone. It is demonstrating more clearly every day that it has no more reason to demand anything of a neighbor than Britain has the right to demand the disarmament of France.

If Putin doesn't quickly cut a deal with Zelensky that salvages a modicum of international respect, then we are likely looking at a major historical inflection point.

 

[Ray B]

Granted - we had no business being in 'Nam

One should review what results he/she desires from his/her post. If you wanted me to ignore whatever you wrote after the above sentence then you succeeded.

 

[Sabattiboy]

My friend, what worries many of us here is our president's inability to adequately process or articulate critical foreign (domestic as well, but less existentially dangerous) policy messages. I feel like I am watching my mother around five years before she passed away.

For instance, during the NATO press event, he was asked what the US and NATO would do if the Russians used chemical weapons in Ukraine. He responded that the Alliance would "respond in kind." That means that NATO would respond to that attack with chemical weapons. That would be somewhat difficult, even if he had a clue what he was saying, because the US and NATO destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles three decades ago. His national security advisor and press secretary have spent the latter half of today trying to clean that dangerous nonsense up. Instead of a stern warning being delivered to the Russians, they are at best chuckling.

He also became loud and almost angry with a reporter for asking about why the sanctions failed as a deterrent. To remind, Biden, his VP, his press secretary and National Security Advisor all stated that sanctions were designed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine. Again, there is serious head scratching goin on here and there should be among our NATO allies. Putin can only be emboldened by what appears to be a befuddled old man.

Who says the USA can not respond in like kind? We are lied to as a way of life.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Red Leg]

Who says the USA can not respond in like kind? We are lied to as a way of life.

I do.

And I am only wasting the time to respond to you because you specifically answered my post. I was a fairly senior military officer, and I am the one on the forum who made the statement with regard to our chemical weapons stockpile and capabilities. I assume therefore you have accused me of being a liar. I don't appreciate it. Since you obviously don't have the remotest clue about the subject, let me try to educate you. I find it much better to enter a debate with at least a few actual facts at hand. You should try it.

The US unilaterally renounced first use of chemical and biological weapons during the Nixon administration. Under Reagan in the late eighties, with agreement of then West Germany, the US removed all its chemical weapons from Europe. We began destruction of our stockpile in 1988. DOD had to overcome numerous environmental hurdles to begin and continue actual destruction. It has received constant Congressional oversight since. Over 50% of the stockpile had been destroyed by 2010. By 2015, over 90% had been destroyed and by next year, the remaining components will be gone. Since the late eighties, this country has had no deployable chemical weapons with which we could use "in kind" against a foe. Those - are - facts.

You really ought to take a bit of time and educate yourself on issues before calling someone a liar - particularly on a subject about which you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever.

 

[Ray B]

I do.

Just wondering, actually with regard to whatever facilities/agents are in Ukraine, How are the chemicals/biological things destroyed?
If I had a bunch of virus organisms I'd try to kill them with heat or Ph variations. If I had some chemicals, I'd apply an element to make them inert.
this shows how little experience I have with such things, and that I would guess that operations such as I would try would be very time intensive and ill suited to achieving the goal in the time frame of the Russians attacking a few miles to the east.

 

[Red Leg]

So two different things. Chemical weapons are "easier" to dispose of than biological or viral. With respect to chemical munitions, I say easier because the technology is simpler, but the quantities have been enormous. Biological agents can be easily killed by several means, and it is best accomplished at the lab location. Anthrax, which can be created and stored in quantity is a greater challenge.

The US has used five sites and incineration technology to destroy millions of pounds of weapons grade chemical weapons, some of which dated to the the First World War. Much of it was ours, but tons came from depots in former Soviet Republics (like Ukraine). Things like chlorine and blister agents were destroyed at sites in the US, and the really nasty stuff on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. During my two years as the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison, I regularly briefed members and staff on the progress of the divestment.

The US destroyed all of its weaponized biological agents by 1975. Defensive research into potential treatments and vaccines continues.

 

[Ray B]

If the Ukraine location was in danger of being overrun, to prevent the stuff from being misused, how effective would setting off several dozen thermite grenades to burn the place to the ground be?

 

[Red Leg]

If the Ukraine location was in danger of being overrun, to prevent the stuff from being misused, how effective would setting off several dozen thermite grenades to burn the place to the ground be?

These were research facilities. During the Soviet era, several of those labs were used for bio-weaponry research. There are dozens across Eastern Europe. Whether any of the ones in Ukraine follow better protocols than Wuhan, I have no clue. Among other research, some are doing research on any number of bacterial and viral diseases that represent a threat to humankind. As far as I have read, there was no attempt to develop gain of function strains. None of these likely would respond well to the stray Russian artillery round.

The problem with biological or viral samples is that you can't afford to miss anything. Yes thermite will destroy both, but unless the sample is contained in someway, how can one be sure it was fully destroyed?

 

[Sabattiboy]

I do.

And I am only wasting the time to respond to you because you specifically answered my post. I was a fairly senior military officer, and I am the one on the forum who made the statement with regard to our chemical weapons stockpile and capabilities. I assume therefore you have accused me of being a liar. I don't appreciate it. Since you obviously don't have the remotest clue about the subject, let me try to educate you. I find it much better to enter a debate with at least a few actual facts at hand. You should try it.

The US unilaterally renounced first use of chemical and biological weapons during the Nixon administration. Under Reagan in the late eighties, with agreement of then West Germany, the US removed all its chemical weapons from Europe. We began destruction of our stockpile in 1988. DOD had to overcome numerous environmental hurdles to begin and continue actual destruction. It has received constant Congressional oversight since. Over 50% of the stockpile had been destroyed by 2010. By 2015, over 90% had been destroyed and by next year, the remaining components will be gone. Since the late eighties, this country has had no deployable chemical weapons with which we could use "in kind" against a foe. Those - are - facts.

You really ought to take a bit of time and educate yourself on issues before calling someone a liar - particularly on a subject about which you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever.

Thank you for responding to my question. It was a question.
Apparently Biden's choice of words, intentional or otherwise, implied the USA has the means to respond in kind.

As far as being able to educate myself in such matters, I have never personally been invited to see any military stockpiles therefor any information I read via newspapers, magazines or TV news is largely what the general public is told.
I am frequently called a liar in different ways. For one, I never put things on my resume that I have not done or experienced. Those reading resumes frequently find applicants lie in order to get the job so why would my resume be treated any different. (Not a question)
I have many log files and journals of personal things I've been involved with, no government or military, or done and would offer them to anybody that thinks I am feeding them BS. I still get the Jack Elam eye and nobody has ever asked to see them.
And my last word is that I am nobody and will do my best not to comment beyond that.

 

[Scott CWO]

Thank you for responding to my question. It was a question.
Apparently Biden's choice of words, intentional or otherwise, implied the USA has the means to respond in kind.

As far as being able to educate myself in such matters, I have never personally been invited to see any military stockpiles therefor any information I read via newspapers, magazines or TV news is largely what the general public is told.
I am frequently called a liar in different ways. For one, I never put things on my resume that I have not done or experienced. Those reading resumes frequently find applicants lie in order to get the job so why would my resume be treated any different. (Not a question)
I have many log files and journals of personal things I've been involved with, no government or military, or done and would offer them to anybody that thinks I am feeding them BS. I still get the Jack Elam eye and nobody has ever asked to see them.
And my last word is that I am nobody and will do my best not to comment beyond that.

@Sabattiboy you are obviously free to say and post whatever you like but some of your posts seem quite cynical and conspiratorial more often than not. Is there a reason for this outlook? Did you have some negative experiences with a deceptive authority that shaped these views or suspicions? I think a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing but if someone thinks everyone is ALWAYS lying or hiding things, I, for one, sometimes suspect that person of the same. I could be wrong. I am not trying to upset you. Just curious about your level of distrust. I believe the MSM has chosen sides and I am skeptical of many things they put out and also many politicians but I do know of some good people with those occupations.

 

[spike.t]

War in Ukraine: The danger of wishful Western thinking

With Russia still a powerful force, wide-eyed realism is what Ukraine needs from the US and Europe.

www.bbc.com

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Listening to Biden's European tour clips it strikes me that he is a very dangerous agent at this time. There is a major conflict happening and a few more potential ones brewing. He has culpability for the Russia-Ukraine war through his stupid and unfathomable message signaling, like a little incursion was ok. The idealist liberal fringe that the Democrats allowed to gain so much ground and represent them also bears blame. The USA needs to find it's feet again because the Free World needs a solid USA. My hope is that this world mess will galvanise the adults on either side of the aisle to get together and sort things out. Come the midterms the Republicans are well placed to put this all right and be pivotal in a massive course correction. My hope is that they don't allow petty partisan politics to enter into this huge responsibility.

 

[Ray B]

@Kevin Peacocke - Having Republicans do as you suggest has been for many years the Impossible Dream. A significant problem with Republicans is that they only know how to play defense. they get a candidate (Trump) that knows how to play offense and several of his "teammates do what they can to undermine him, wanting things to return to the status quo. there are laws seeking to prevent domestic violence but these politicians fail to see the parallels between domestic violence and their continual beatings from the DemonRats- so just like the abused wife they accept the situation as normal and refuse any assistance for change.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Shades of the Cuban missile crisis, no?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Russians trained with and were posted in Cuba for years. They were in an alliance for years. They used Russian money to help deploy Cuban forces to Angola for years. Other events will occur to you.

You could try "Shades of the Bay of Pigs", but the differences there should be obvious.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was about the deployment of Intermediate Range nuclear missiles that could reach the capital in less than 10 minutes. Can we please stop the nonsense of comparing a modern Army of more than 100,000 troops, the bombing of civilian targets, the attempted takeover of a sovereign country, and millions of refugees with a naval quarantine and two weeks of diplomatic negotiations? They are as different as chalk and cheese.

 

[Foxi]

My friend, what worries many of us here is our president's inability to adequately process or articulate critical foreign (domestic as well, but less existentially dangerous) policy messages. I feel like I am watching my mother around five years before she passed away.

Oh je
We don't get all that because the press pretty much hypes Biden and only the best comes across (and the very worst of DT) .
He's no Bismarck, apparently ,our old iron chancellor.
Politically a lot is changing here right now.
Even the Greens are for a massive rearmament.
We all didn't want that here anymore. Every child in this country knows what Germany looked like in 1945, which is always in our bones.
We had dreamed that the people can no longer want.
And believed the wolve, who ate a lot of chalk.(a metapher in a German fairy tale)

 

[mark-hunter]

I wonder, how this all will reflect on next EU firearms directive, in private ownership of guns?
Their previous intentions was to ban semi automatic rifles (which did not pass), and to limit magazine capacities?
It will also be interesting to see how it will reflect German gun laws, as they are some of the most strict in EU.