Out 'Missiled': How Would America Stop Russia or China's Massive Stockpile of Missiles?

Russian military might "hinders" US in @jeanettes post....yup it sure hindered them in Syria....when several hundred Russki mercs were turned into chopped liver....in less than 2 hours! Not a peep from the Kremlin!

Hell....the rag tag ukranians killed off several thousand "vacationing" russki regulars in ukraine with outdated Dragunov rifles!)

 

Faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

Derivative nonsense.

Lenin the Economist? Ho ho ho

PROPAGANDA ALERT!

 

PROPAGANDA ALERT!

 

PROPAGANDA ALERT!

 

Put the nukes to one side and have an all out conventional war. That'll decide it for sure.

 

Not only Guam, but also Texas and Southern California - is illegally occupied

 

Tell it to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

The US military think otherwise. However, as well as the inhabitants of the Middle East. Yes, and India with Saudi Arabia prefers to buy Russian C 400, but not American "patriots". Even NATO member Turkey prefers C 400.

 

Lenin including an economist. Great economist. And so the work of Lenin is studied by all economists of the world. And anyone who has a brain understands this.

 

Yes. If there were no threat of mutual annihilation, the war would have happened long ago.

 

Should have happened in 1945 the minute Nazi Germany surrendered.

 

In a pinch, after Churchill's Fulton speech.

 

When everything reminds of an old buddy.

 

OP

And young Kim Jong Un would probably chip in a few nukes too.

 

US and Russia arnt gonna nuke eachother.

Nor could either of them successfully invade the other.

What is the purpose of these threads anyway?

 

The only statesman among a bunch of political pygmies who have to wear lanyards to let other political pygmies know who they are. The humiliation of it!

 

If you meant the Russians against the US and UK you're forgetting we had the bomb and you didn't. If you mean us against you that WAS Patton's idea, but it's unlikely we could have defeated you either. We were war-weary already and you were still just getting started as subsequent events showed

 

I am sure that neither the Americans nor the Russians want war. But unfortunately there are idiots in power who need war.
And it's not even that they are aggressive crazy. The fact is that the US (and the EU) economy is in very poor condition.
If you look at the real economy of the United States, you will see that it actually does not exist. The only source of prosperity in the United States is the dollar, as the main reserve currency and borrowed funds.
Of course, I say this in the form of a hyperbole, but the essence should be clear.
If you read Lenin's work "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism." You will understand the real causes of the war.

If you squeeze chapter 7 "IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM" (Please forgive me if I make stylistic mistakes in translation. I do not speak English. I use a translator)

We must now try to sum up the well-known results, bring together what was said above about imperialism. Imperialism grew as a development and direct continuation of the basic properties of capitalism in general. But capitalism became capitalist imperialism only at a certain, very high level of development, when some basic properties of capitalism began to turn into its opposite, when the features of the transitional era from capitalism to a higher socio-economic structure were formed and revealed. Economically, the main thing in this process is the change of capitalist free competition - by capitalist monopolies. Free competition is the main feature of capitalism and commodity production in general; monopoly is the direct opposite of free competition, but the latter, before our eyes, began to turn into a monopoly, creating large-scale production, displacing small-scale, replacing large-scale with the largest, bringing the concentration of production and capital to the extent that monopoly grew out of it: cartels, syndicates, trusts The capital of a dozen of banks that turn over billions of banks merge with them. And at the same time, monopolies, growing out of free competition, do not eliminate it, but exist above it and next to it, thus creating a number of particularly acute and sharp contradictions, friction, and conflicts. Monopoly is a transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the shortest possible definition of imperialism, then it would be necessary to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include the most important thing, for, on the one hand, financial capital is the banking capital of the monopolistically few largest banks, merged with the capital of the monopolistic unions of industrialists; on the other hand, the division of the world is a transition from colonial politics, expanding unhindered to areas not captured by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolistic possession of the territory of the earth, divided to the end.
But too short definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main thing, are still insufficient, since it is necessary to deduce from them the very essential features of the phenomenon that needs to be defined. Therefore, not forgetting the conditional and relative significance of all definitions in general, which can never encompass the full connections of the phenomenon in its full development, it is necessary to give such a definition of imperialism, which would include the following five main features:
1) the concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high level of development, that it has created monopolies that play a crucial role in economic life;
2) the merger of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this "financial capital", of a financial oligarchy;
3) the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, is of particular importance;
4) international monopolistic capitalist unions are formed, dividing the world, and
5) the territorial division of land by the major capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development, when the domination of monopolies and financial capital took shape, the export of capital acquired outstanding significance, the division of the world by international trusts began and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the major capitalist countries ended.

If this interested you. You can read further.
Chapter 8 "PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM"
Chapter 9 "CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM"....

Link to full text. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

 

Speaking consistently. That will be the opposite. The UK government and the US government (not nations) against Russia. Because the aggressive speech was made not by Stalin, but by Churchill.

 

What if Henry Wallace had become the President instead of Truman?

 

I don't think anyone would have been able to get Congressional approval for war with Russia. The American people wanted to come home. Besides, it would have seemed like backstabbing to many. It was the Russians who had really fought most of WWII and we were not totally ignorant of that fact. You don't just suddenly turn on a loyal Ally no matter his politics or ideology, at least you didn't back then.

 

You don't everyone dies.

MAD

It's not quite as bad as the movies but it wouldn't be good dare I say even worse than if Hillary was elected

 

Name some of these "economists" of the world....who so closely follow Lenins failed policies?

 

I bet you'd be all for that after you landed in Normandy and walked yer way to Austria. Under fire..