1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. Strategy for Russia and Eastern Europe

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Horhey, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:15 PM.

  1. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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 at 7:15 PM
  2. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    23,184
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.

Share This Page