[marabod]

Acid, if I suggest that you were talking about the exercises and politicians, then the "price" there is their own life, it is not a game! Russia cannot afford to have American bases in the South, hostile EU at the West and overpopulated nuclear China in the East, because from the North side it is only North Pole. This is not my own vision but an approach which exists for 2500 years since Thucydides, and which states that any country on any expense tries to avoid having a war on 2 fronts - in this case one can see the prospects of war on 3 fronts, not on two! From this it follows that the weakest of the potential opponents has to be either made an ally and placed under control, or destroyed in a preventative strike. EU is the weakest one! hence they are working out how to attack it, since it refuses to be an ally and uses Poland as its representative to maintain hostility. One does not need to be a Machiavelli to see these simple things. <shrug> It is not "Russia exercising", it is EU playing Russian Roulette.

[BlackRedLittleDevil]

The Silver Thong, on 07 November 2009 - 07:24 AM, said:

Ya ok. Key word here is simulations assuming the biggest military force ever to grace the planet has not run thousands upon thousands of simulations is rather silly in my mind. I would imagine that Canada along with Australia and Britian have been part of the simulations. Key word simulation and I imagine being the crack team you have in the think tanks havn't thought what if then I don't know what to say.

Its not an anglo only world. When Simulations are done with other countries they usually do them on land and sea with other NATO aligned nations.

[keithisco]

marabod, on 07 November 2009 - 08:03 AM, said:

Acid, if I suggest that you were talking about the exercises and politicians, then the "price" there is their own life, it is not a game! Russia cannot afford to have American bases in the South, hostile EU at the West and overpopulated nuclear China in the East, because from the North side it is only North Pole. This is not my own vision but an approach which exists for 2500 years since Thucydides, and which states that any country on any expense tries to avoid having a war on 2 fronts - in this case one can see the prospects of war on 3 fronts, not on two! From this it follows that the weakest of the potential opponents has to be either made an ally and placed under control, or destroyed in a preventative strike. EU is the weakest one! hence they are working out how to attack it, since it refuses to be an ally and uses Poland as its representative to maintain hostility. One does not need to be a Machiavelli to see these simple things. <shrug> It is not "Russia exercising", it is EU playing Russian Roulette.

I dont really see the EU playing "Russian Roulette" because the EU does not have a standing army, nor a Common Foreign Policy towards Russia.... However, I would point out that most EU nations are also members of NATO, and that 2 EU Nations are also Nuclear Powers in their own right making the EU a potent defense force by any standards. Most of the EU nations also have national standing armies with extremely well trained forces.

[The Silver Thong]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 07 November 2009 - 01:37 AM, said:

Its not an anglo only world. When Simulations are done with other countries they usually do them on land and sea with other NATO aligned nations.

An anglo word hmmm not sure there. However running a simulation does not necessarily mean you need to run it with 50.000 soldiers the navy the air force etc. A simulation can be done in think tanks, computers run these simulations and most are run many times changing slight variables to see what happens. By no means does America or any other nation need to go full scale on these simulations. I call it war games and we all know what that is. Damn I bet there have even been simulations (computer) of Mecca being nuked and seeing what kind of out come it would bring LOL If I had access to these simulation programs I would come up with some crazy asss stuff to simulate.

[The Silver Thong]

Just thought this would be a neat read and yup it was.

http://en.wikipedia....tary_simulation

This post has been edited by The Silver Thong: 07 November 2009 - 05:03 PM

[acidhead]

marabod, on 06 November 2009 - 10:48 PM, said:

Sorry, but I did not understand what you mean. Who exactly has the price, what is the price, who is to pay it and why?

Russia has had a 'stake' in the world order since who really knows when?... The League of Nations? or the new United Nations in 1945.

I just don't envision any future conflict with Russia. They were our friends during WW2... The cold war ended with Russia bankrupt, divided but cooperating.

The result -they still have a massive stake in the 'world order' being forged today... -Global governance under the U.N.

Russia is a veto country... a founding country of the U.N. --a partner, if you will.... so is China, the U.S., the U.K. and France.

This has been the globalists plan and dream for a cooperative, 'global' -resource sharing, financial, military world order... -peace and compromise... a stake.

Any conflict Russia has with neighboring countries(Poland and the Ukraine) are internal conflicts based on economic energy deals.

Deals that bankrupt countries and force them to dip into the IMF and World Bank funds---both creations of the U.N. --meaning Russia has a stake in those funds as well.

To win the hearts and minds of the last remaining people who need convincing - the american 'proud' populace - a level of fear must be maintained to achieve this goal.

Remember... America was the most egalitarian and entrepreneurial nation and with great pride comes great fear of losing such status.

In a game of poker, Russia is just another table inside the casino.. -and we all know the house always wins when the odds are on their side.

Just my outside looking in opinion.

[marabod]

keithisco, on 07 November 2009 - 10:01 PM, said:

I dont really see the EU playing "Russian Roulette" because the EU does not have a standing army, nor a Common Foreign Policy towards Russia.... However, I would point out that most EU nations are also members of NATO, and that 2 EU Nations are also Nuclear Powers in their own right making the EU a potent defense force by any standards. Most of the EU nations also have national standing armies with extremely well trained forces.

That would be a useful explanation! When dealing with a member of EU, constantly poking it, Russia probably takes into account this thing about NATO and 2 nuclear powers, and thinks this is NATO and two nuclear powers who are poking it, not just some lousy Poland - hence the nuclear attack simulation. Do they also train local armies how not to evaporate?

These exercises do not present any military threat, they sure were staged simply as a warning - to show where the development has turned to. I doubt very much that Germany, Italy or France feel anyhow threatened at all, neither are they afraid of a hypothetical Russian occupation, as they were already occupied in the past and know that there is no reason for Russia to make them colonies, no one slays a fowl, laying golden eggs.

[Stellar]

Quote

I never once said the U.S. was going to or was planning an envasion or an attack. I stated that the U.S. has done simulations

Yes, but when you said "simulation" it took the same context as the "simulation" Russia did against Poland, ie: an exercise, with troops and whatnot.

Now, you have to understand the difference between an "exercise" and a "rehearsal". An exercise is done so that the soldiers recieve training, they learn and they can apply that knowledge to similar future scenarios. Whether you call the enemy the "Venturi Freedom Fighters" or the "Peoples Liberation Army" has no bearing on the actual training they perform, which is why during exercises we usually make up a name in order to remain neutral, or we use the enemy we are actually fighting. To use any other country is politically dangerous as it is portraying them as the enemy, and it is akin to trying to teach your troops that that country is the enemy. If a civilian got ahold of this news "US staging exercises to invade Canada" it could be taken very wrongly, spread and now you have a political backlash...

Now, rehearsals are something that are done before going into a mission. For example, (in a platoon context) if you are to take that giant hill, youre going to practice taking that giant hill... and make that scenario as realistic as possible. To run an exercise in which case you simulate the invasion of an actual country, from the strategy you plan to use to the identity of that country likens the exercise to a "rehearsal" and hence can add tension to the political relationship between the two countries. Its more of a statement to the other country.

For example, your neighbour doesnt want you to put up a fence between your two houses. Infact, he puts up a makeshift fence between your two houses and practices cutting it to shreds with a chainsaw... hes clearly making a statement to you

[Stellar]

Quote

I call it war games and we all know what that is.

War games arent usually computer simulations. War games are where you simulate an actual war and you do have the military physically participating in it! At least, on this end of the pond thats what they are.

Quote

Damn I bet there have even been simulations (computer) of Mecca being nuked and seeing what kind of out come it would bringDamn I bet there have even been simulations (computer) of Mecca being nuked and seeing what kind of out come it would bring

I doubt it, because no computer can predict what kind of outcome that would bring. The only prediction it could make is "lots of people will be pissed and this many people in this radius from the blast will be killed." It wont tell you who will win the war, it wont tell you how the war will be faught. The computer "simulations" are limited to the physical results of precise calculated events. You can calculate the blast radius of a 100 kT nuke, you can calculate how the wind will affect the radioactive debris.. all because you can imput real values for the strength of the nuke, the location of the nuke, the wind strength, the terrain and so on. You can not predict how a battle will be faught nor who will win a battle simply by a computer. How do you imput data for "Leadership" and "Moral" into the equation? Computer simulations are very limited what they can do. The more complex the scenario, the less the computer "simulation" is likely to be accurate.

This post has been edited by Stellar: 07 November 2009 - 07:21 PM

[acidhead]

Stellar, on 07 November 2009 - 11:05 AM, said:

Yes, but when you said "simulation" it took the same context as the "simulation" Russia did against Poland, ie: an exercise, with troops and whatnot.

Now, you have to understand the difference between an "exercise" and a "rehearsal". An exercise is done so that the soldiers recieve training, they learn and they can apply that knowledge to similar future scenarios. Whether you call the enemy the "Venturi Freedom Fighters" or the "Peoples Liberation Army" has no bearing on the actual training they perform, which is why during exercises we usually make up a name in order to remain neutral, or we use the enemy we are actually fighting. To use any other country is politically dangerous as it is portraying them as the enemy, and it is akin to trying to teach your troops that that country is the enemy. If a civilian got ahold of this news "US staging exercises to invade Canada" it could be taken very wrongly, spread and now you have a political backlash...

Now, rehearsals are something that are done before going into a mission. For example, (in a platoon context) if you are to take that giant hill, youre going to practice taking that giant hill... and make that scenario as realistic as possible. To run an exercise in which case you simulate the invasion of an actual country, from the strategy you plan to use to the identity of that country likens the exercise to a "rehearsal" and hence can add tension to the political relationship between the two countries. Its more of a statement to the other country.

For example, your neighbour doesnt want you to put up a fence between your two houses. Infact, he puts up a makeshift fence between your two houses and practices cutting it to shreds with a chainsaw... hes clearly making a statement to you

Good example... I like that... good analogy

[The Silver Thong]

Stellar, on 07 November 2009 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yes, but when you said "simulation" it took the same context as the "simulation" Russia did against Poland, ie: an exercise, with troops and whatnot.

Now, you have to understand the difference between an "exercise" and a "rehearsal". An exercise is done so that the soldiers receive training, they learn and they can apply that knowledge to similar future scenarios. Whether you call the enemy the "Venturi Freedom Fighters" or the "Peoples Liberation Army" has no bearing on the actual training they perform, which is why during exercises we usually make up a name in order to remain neutral, or we use the enemy we are actually fighting. To use any other country is politically dangerous as it is portraying them as the enemy, and it is akin to trying to teach your troops that that country is the enemy. If a civilian got ahold of this news "US staging exercises to invade Canada" it could be taken very wrongly, spread and now you have a political backlash...

Now, rehearsals are something that are done before going into a mission. For example, (in a platoon context) if you are to take that giant hill, youre going to practice taking that giant hill... and make that scenario as realistic as possible. To run an exercise in which case you simulate the invasion of an actual country, from the strategy you plan to use to the identity of that country likens the exercise to a "rehearsal" and hence can add tension to the political relationship between the two countries. Its more of a statement to the other country.

For example, your neighbour doesnt want you to put up a fence between your two houses. Infact, he puts up a makeshift fence between your two houses and practices cutting it to shreds with a chainsaw... hes clearly making a statement to you

I did apologize for not having a source. I did however as best I could try to infer that America should and probably has done simulations on attacks in Canada. If America hasn't than thats a flaw in there thinking. As a Canadian I sure hope our military has simulated an invasion from the U.S. to see what a possible out come would be like. Hell why not run that simulation.

I did point to the simulation just after WWI in the 30's where over 50.000 soldiers conducted a simulation attack on Canada. plus in the beginning of the thread I was asked if this was new or old and I stated yesteryear meaning not that recent. As far as nuclear simulations I can't provide that and I'm sorry but I still have to believe that a simulation was done just as Canada probably has done as any responsible nation would do with there neighbors.

I wonder if simulations were used after America accidental dropped a nuke on Canada. A none armed nuke but still lets not split hairs. Of course if America ran a simulation on an invasion of Canada would be looked at as ummm WTF are they planning. However me you and most of the planet know America has no plans to invade Canada. Thats silly talk.

I was called an American hater in this thread and that rubbed me wrong. Not by you but still. America is Canada's best buddy aside from Saudi Arabia LOL sorry small joke I love America and if the crap hit the fan I would join the marines if I so felt compelled.

Again I'm sorry if I tryed to compare the Russian simulation to equal that of a U.S. Canada simulation. Of course there is a difference.

This post has been edited by The Silver Thong: 07 November 2009 - 07:26 PM

[Stellar]

Quote

Good example... I like that... good analogy

And to continue on that note... You cant say "So what? I've thought about what it would be like to break down a fence MY neighbour put up too?", nor can you compare it to "I made a computer program in which I tear down my neighbours fence!" Because its not the same. One's more of a statement and practice, the other ones not.

[acidhead]

Stellar, on 07 November 2009 - 11:23 AM, said:

And to continue on that note... You cant say "So what? I've thought about what it would be like to break down a fence MY neighbour put up too?", nor can you compare it to "I made a computer program in which I tear down my neighbours fence!" Because its not the same. One's more of a statement and practice, the other ones not.

Lets not forget Russia is a major player and a veto country who founded the U.N. along with China, U.S.A., U.K. and France.

The U.N. founded the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

I see Russia, like the USA, -as global powers- exercising their post-world war victory onto nations who thought the end to WW2 meant economic freedom.

Man were they wrong... there is no economic freedom, globally, when economic stakes have been compromised among the victors... none.

..just my opinion....

Its this way of political posturing which enables U.N. related organizations to flourish under the disguise of destruction through force or economic warfare.

[Stellar]

Quote

I did apologize for not having a source. I did however as best I could try to infer that America should and probably has done simulations on attacks in Canada.

Look at the context of the OP. The russian "Simulation" involved boots on the ground. When you claimed an American simulation of invading Canada, thats the meaning your word "simulation" took on... "Boots on the ground". You either misunderstood what Russia did and thought they did a "computer simulation", or you actually meant an exercise like Russia did, with boots on the ground, which is exactly what I think you meant.

Quote

If America hasn't than thats a flaw in there thinking. As a Canadian I sure hope our military has simulated an invasion from the U.S.

To what end? A "just in case"? Im sure someone has put some thought into it... Hell, I have entertained the idea before... I know what I'd consider key ground that would need to be defended/neutralized to prevent it, but that is a far cry from a "simulation". A "Simulation" wont accomplish anything in this case. Anyone with a half decent brain can figure out what the "possible outcome would be". Fighting a war isnt about calculated movements, its about calculated chaos, which our chaotic brains are more capable of understanding than a highly ordered computer.

Quote

Hell why not run that simulation.

Because we have more important things to do and focus on than train for some unlikely scenario. You can have a certain amount of planning, a certain amount of generalized actions that you would take to respond to such an event which Im sure do exist... but this will remain very limited. You can identify key ground, for example, and key targets, but you can not figure out how the enemy is going to attack or defend it.

Ever try playing chess against a computer? Try playing the same game (attempt to use the same moves) against a human. I guarentee you, while the outcome may be similar if you play against a computer and against a person thats better than you, after the first few moves, the pieces on the computer screen are probably in much different locations than the pieces on the real board. The computer, today, can not analyze how a person thinks, what his plans are and so on.

And if youre going to come up to me now and say "Well, the computer predicted the other person would win!" I'll tell you this: I could have predicted the same probably faster than you could run the "simulation" simply by knowing the person is better than you.

Quote

I did point to the simulation just after WWI in the 30's where over 50.000 soldiers conducted a simulation attack on Canada.

Yes, and that had its own political ramifications as well, which is why you dont just do this willy-nilly. You do this when the possibility of having to do this is high, or as a statement.

Quote

plus in the beginning of the thread I was asked if this was new or old and I stated yesteryear meaning not that recent.

Perhaps you should read the definition of "yesteryear"

"–noun 1. last year.
2. the recent years; time not long past. "

Quote

As far as nuclear simulations I can't provide that and I'm sorry but I still have to believe that a simulation was done just as Canada probably has done as any responsible nation would do with there neighbors.

People have an odd understanding of the military. You'd have to join the military to understand how the military works. The military is far from what I pictured it as before I joined.

Quote

I wonder if simulations were used after America accidental dropped a nuke on Canada. A none armed nuke but still lets not split hairs. Of course if America ran a simulation on an invasion of Canada would be looked at as ummm WTF are they planning. However me you and most of the planet know America has no plans to invade Canada. Thats silly talk.

And hence they dont spend valuable resources running an exercise on this! Resources are limited, threats are real. You dont waste resources by dedicating them to "silly talk". HENCE why this Russian exercise has more political ramifications to your "silly talk".

Quote

America is Canada's best buddy aside from Saudi Arabia LOL sorry small joke I love America and if the crap hit the fan I would join the marines if I so felt compelled.

Out of curiosity, why the Marines? Why not the CF?

[Stellar]

Quote

Again I'm sorry if I tryed to compare the Russian simulation to equal that of a U.S. Canada simulation. Of course there is a difference.

Indeed, there is a difference because the US and Canada have not done anything similar to what Russia just did in at any point in the recent past.