U.S. Strategy for Russia and Eastern Europe

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Horhey, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male

    In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration announced its plans to develop a missile defense system designed to protect the United States from attack by ballistic strategic nuclear weapons (intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles). The new project, officially termed the Strategic Defense Initiative by the Pentagon and nicknamed "Star Wars" in the media, became fully operational in 2006.


    Some analysts have argued that U.S. missile defense is a sword, not a shield, as the Pentagon claims. Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press write in Foreign Affairs that the actual purpose of the program is to establish U.S. nuclear primacy over potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors point out that Washington has continued to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":
    [​IMG]

    This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to:
    The National Security Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words:
    [​IMG]

    In 2006 the U.S. Space Command released plans to expand U.S. "control" of space to "ownership" for military purposes. Ownership of space is key to our nation's military effectiveness, permitting:
    Military analyst William Arkin comments:
    Hillary Clinton Threatens Nuclear War (23:53-24:50)



    [​IMG]

    Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that in addition to the deployment U.S. missile defenses, the DPG's latter recommendation has also been proceeding on course:
    Many of the same points are made by John Mearsheimer, also in Foreign Affairs, a few months after the U.S.-orchestrated a coup in Ukraine in 2014:

    In Kiev 2014, the National Endowment for Democracy helped facilitate mass anti-government demonstrations that ultimately led to the ouster of Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. Months before the coup, NED President Carl Gershman wrote an Oped in the Washington Post hailing Ukraine as "the biggest prize" and explained how pulling it into the U.S. camp could contribute to regime change in Moscow by similar means:
    Direct U.S. involvement also came from the highest levels. In a leaked recorded telephone call to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is heard deciding who will be Yanukovych's successor. "Yats is the guy," Nuland said, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk:
    Of course, none of this would be possible without the tacit complicity of the Free Press. There is a yearning for World War 3 across the board, in news reporting and commentary, late night talk shows, and the like. Washington Post editor Ruth Marcus did not mince words when she declared this desire on Twitter in March 2017:
    Also on Twitter, two days after the U.S. bombed a Syrian military base on April
    7, 2017, MSNBC's Joy Reid expressed disappointment that President Trump didn't attack Russian troops:
    Another pseudo-progressive, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  2. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    24,926
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 2000 Bush pulled out of the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Putin said this was a mistake
    (The purpose of this treaty was so that some buckaroo would not get the hair brained idea - we will strike first and when they shoot back we will shoot their missiles down)
    .
    In 2006 Bush initiated plans to put ABM's (missile defense) on Russia's border in Poland and Czech. This destabilized nuclear detente which forced Russia to take counter measures.

    One counter measure - one which Russia pondered publicly was "Nukes in space". Currently it takes roughly 30 min for a nuke to arrive from Russia. Not sure I would sleep better at night with a nuke above my head - 30 seconds away.

    Russia did not do this. Instead Russia violated the short and intermediate range treaty and built short and intermediate range nuclear cruise missiles. Should Russia wish to launch they will first take out our satellites. They will then take out missile defense with nuclear cruise missiles. Then they will launch - and there is f-all we can do. If Russia was not certain of this - they would have put nukes in space

    Subs are also a counter to missile defense and Russia has been continuously improving in that dept.

    Conclusion: Missile defense has not made us safer, it has done nothing but ramp up the arms race and bring us closer to nuclear war by aggravating the other major nuclear power.
     
    moon likes this.
  4. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is a really neat trick, how did he do that?

    In 2000 he was the Governor of Texas.

    And Space weapons were not outlawed by the 1972 ABM treaty, they were outlawed years before in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (and again by the SALT II Treaty in 1979).

    And no, the Soviets did not consider "nukes in space". The closest they came was the Fractional Orbit Bombardment System (FOBS). And that is not really all that much different than a traditional ICBM.

    In an ICBM, the missile operated in a parabolic arc, so shortly after launch the target can be determined using simple geometry. Under FOBS however the missile would launch, then enter a low-earth orbit. By doing so, it would be impossible to determine what the target of the missile would be. Then before completing even a single orbit it would use it's engine to de-orbit and fall to it's target.

    It took even longer from launch to target than a conventional ICBM, but had the advantage of masking the target. But this was not only outlawed by SALT II, it was also deemed of no real value since there was no benefit to masking the target since you could not mask the launch itself.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  6. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male








     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
  7. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male

    I noticed that whenever someone uses Noam Chomsky as a source it almost always gets dismissed by people on the other side of the debate. This is the case even though 'the Chomsky narrative' has proven to be correct consistently for decades. It was he who first alerted me to U.S. missile defenses being a first strike weapon. I didn't just discover it on my own.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Because he is a nutcase.

    But please, how can a defense system be used as a first strike weapon? That makes about as much sense as claiming that a bullet proof vest is an offensive weapon.
     
  9. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I detailed it in my first post.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You mean the one filled with crazy speculation, with really bad photoshop and clips from decades old B movies?

    Your initial post is so far off of the mark, it is beyond laughable. It is filled with the mostly laughably funny nonsense form the 1980's, with no grasp of the reality.

    Tell me, do you even know what the goal of SDI was? DO you even have a clue how it is in operation today?

    No, it is like you have been kept in a vault since the Reagan Era.

    Once again, a threat more appropriate in the Conspiracy Theory thread than in here.
     
  11. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You point to nothing specific. Just broad sweeps. And it's like you see Reagan's face and then just stop there.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, I did indeed run through it.

    Well, has been fully operational since 2006 eh? Wow, somehow they placed thousands of defensive missile locations all over the nation, and nobody has noticed even today.

    No, that entire thing is hand picked of the most sensationalist and fantastic stories of SDI, and it is a bag of confetti to try and read.
     
  13. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male

    Mods reviewed this content in private conversion and decided it wasn't a conspiracy theory. You should read the op before you comment. Instead you resort to smear tactics and you clearly have zero knowledge about the subject in the first place, even suggesting that missile defense is offline. You will stay on my ignore list.
    Here. Some sensationalist Pentagon documents which you apparently did not "run through": http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb245/
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yea, sensational.

    Woohoo.
     
  15. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    More sensationalism, this time from the Federation of American Scientists and also the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,417
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yea, a group founded in 1946 with the goal of nuclear disarmament.

    Of course, that is the same organization in 1985 that said that nothing would come of the research money being poured into the program, and that the money should instead be spent in raising education in the Third World.

    Yea, to bad that there has been a lot of real benefits and technologies that have come out of SDI research.

    I bet you have one of the benefits of SDI sitting right in your pocket, and you have no idea.
     
  17. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok I get it. They're committed to preventing nuclear war and advocate humane policies and are therefore not a credible source to you. You only take militarist sources seriously, like the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, which you conveniently bypassed. Both are in line with the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance cited in my first post.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  18. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  19. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nuclear 'Doomsday Clock' ticks closest to midnight in 64 years | Reuters

    [​IMG]
    Members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists with the updated Doomsday Clock in
    Washington on Thursday.

     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2017
  20. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The media has been silent on this part of the book:

    New Book Reveals Clinton Campaign Hatched Russia Hysteria To Cover For Losing

     

Share This Page