Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Will miscalculation be the end of us?


and-then

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bee said:

 

It's clear that Russia will not tolerate European expansion into it's territory - like attempts in WW2 
when they ended up loosing around 27 million citizens - 

Rather than provoking Russia and sabre rattling it would be safer for everyone if the West accepted that  -
or face the consequences - I sincerely hope '''we''' don't make a serious miscalculation - I believe that Putin
and Russia wants Peace but won't allow invasion - 
 

 

Neat, but, would you like to investigate USSR support to Germany in times when London was bombed?

Hint: last cargo train with goods left USSR/Germany border on the night Germany invaded USSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

I wouldn't really argue the point - but I would suggest encroachment came first.

I can agree that the U.S. did not scrupulously keep our word about leaving Russia a secure buffer.  OTOH, the point I was making was that we are hardly surrounding them with masses of troops and weapons.  There's fault for both sides.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, and then said:

I can agree that the U.S. did not scrupulously keep our word about leaving Russia a secure buffer.  OTOH, the point I was making was that we are hardly surrounding them with masses of troops and weapons.  There's fault for both sides.

Well yes. There are NATO basis surrounding Russia in every corner.  This from Putin is a reaction to this (from your article):

"Trump last summer called for sharply increasing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal during a meeting of national security officials July 20."

The world is in the hands of two idiots, one volatile and unpredictable, the other a silent assassin.  Both dangerous

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

Well yes. There are NATO basis surrounding Russia in every corner.  This from Putin is a reaction to this (from your article):

"Trump last summer called for sharply increasing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal during a meeting of national security officials July 20."

The world is in the hands of two idiots, one volatile and unpredictable, the other a silent assassin.  Both dangerous

I think that you're underestimating the number of idiots though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Putin is a killer, but a calculated one. He does not seem interested in throwing everything in to a fire.

I hope your evaluation is solid.  I admit to being concerned, even fearful during Obama's second term.  He had clearly shown himself to either be a traitor or a spineless man - possibly, both.  My anxiety at this point comes from the fact that Vlad isn't above adventurism. He proved that in Georgia with Bush and then Crimea and Ukraine with Obama.  Even though there has clearly been a change in strategic thinking and personnel, it hasn't really been a complete change.  Trump's camp is riddled with Obama holdovers that still push for the status quo of his presidency.  This is why I mentioned miscalculation.  It's plausible that Putin and his coterie could well look at U.S. politics today and judge that we are too divided politically to take the decisions that would have to be taken should Russia sucker punch our troops in Europe, troops who might respond to aggression by Moscow.  I believe that this would be a serious blunder and that this president would strike in a measured, reciprocal way against Russian forces in the theater.  Care to guess how Putin would then act?  My point is that with two men of such prideful character, there is little chance of either being first to back down.  There have even been recent stories questioning Trump's authority to order a nuclear response.  It was quickly quelled by the military but again, it isn't the truth that matters here.  It's the perception of what's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bee said:

Rather than provoking Russia and sabre rattling it would be safer for everyone if the West accepted that  -
or face the consequences

Granting that the U.S. and NATO made seriously unwise moves after the fall of the Soviet Union, at what point do you judge that Putin will decide he has enough deterrence, Bee?  How far are you willing to see him go?  For example, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia could be invaded and crushed in DAYS.  Just a few days.  In war, it is often true that sudden blows have to be absorbed rather than risk even more horrendous losses.  What if NATO and the U.S. decide that those countries represent that red line?  This is my point.  If Putin and his generals miscalculate where that line is, and especially if joint-NATO forces responded quickly enough (with conventional forces) to cause high losses of Russian forces, Putin's new doctrine could mean the annihilation of hundreds or thousands of  U.S., German, French, Polish, and other NATO troops from surgical nuclear escalation.  Can you realistically expect that kind of slaughter to simply be accepted?  This is a highly dangerous new doctrine and the U.S and Putin need to be talking about moving back from this abyss.  Instead, we have one political party in this country doing everything they can to inflame tensions and to delegitimize any efforts at calming the waters by Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

before a Hate-Trump Fest gets going let's not forget that Trump wanted a good and friendly relationship
with Russia - but this has been made virtually impossible by the warmongers - and his sensible remarks
on that subject during the election campaign has been at the root of a lot of the vicious and deceitful attacks on him (IMO)

The globalists don't want their plans wrecked and if we don't watch it countries in the West could end up
destabilized and ruined by war like those in the Middle East have been - Order out of Chaos is their MO, I think -

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a little Dylanesque twist ... cover by Joe ...

~

 

[00.08:23]

Quote

 

~

Man of Peace
Song by Bob Dylan
 
Lyrics
Look out your window, baby, there's a scene you'd like to catch
The band is playing "Dixie", a man got his hand outstretched
Could be the Fuhrer
Could be the local priest
You know sometimes Satan, you know he comes as a man of peace
He got a sweet gift of gab, he got a harmonious tongue
He knows every song of love that ever has been sung
Good intentions can be evil
Both hands can be full of grease
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
Well, first he's in the background, and then he's in the front
Both eyes are looking like they're on a rabbit hunt
Nobody can see through him
No, not even the Chief of Police
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
Well, he catch you when you're hoping for a glimpse of the sun
Catch you when your troubles feel like they weigh a ton
He could be standing next to you
The person that you'd notice least
I hear that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
Well, he can be fascinating, he can be dull
He can ride down Niagara Falls in the barrels of your skull
I can smell something cooking
I can tell there's going to be a feast
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
He's a great humanitarian, he's great philanthropist
He knows just where to touch you honey, and how you like to be kissed
He'll put both his arms around you
You can feel the tender touch of the beast
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
Well, the howling wolf will howl tonight, the king snake will crawl
Trees that've stood for a thousand years suddenly will fall
Want to get married? Do it now
Tomorrow all activity will cease
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
Somewhere Mama's weeping for her blue-eyed boy
She's holding them little white shoes and that little broken toy
And he's following a star
The same one them three men followed from the East
I hear that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace
 
****
Songwriters: Bob Dylan
Man of Peace lyrics © Bob Dylan Music Co.

 

~
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

I think that you're underestimating the number of idiots though.

Yeah well that's true as well.

It's absolutely mind boggling why the need for more nukes.  Russia and the US have close to 15,000 nukes between them spread more or less evenly and some of them alone, like the Tsar bomb (3,800 times the Hiroshima bomb), are enough to send shock waves to Zeta Reticuli. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will miscalculation be the end of us?

Probably.

Eat dessert first. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Another post predicting the Apocalypse. How many does that make it now, and then? 

To many, IMHO, but it continues and just like the boy who cried wolf someday even the believers will not believe and then.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
14 hours ago, stevewinn said:

correct me if im wrong - Russia is the only Nation who exercises in the use of tactical nukes. As displayed in their recent Zapad 17 exercise. Shock horror Russia moves to secure its borders from external threats. The encroachment by the west read European Union in Ukraine done wonders and set us back more than a few decades. - One gets the feeling if Russia is going to make a move it will be soon.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

OK, when was their last exercise in tactical nukes?

Nukes? Where? When?

Yeah, stick you tongue into Putins bumhole, that will solve conflict. Hmmm, how that worked for USSR back in 1941?

 

13 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Exercise Zapad 2017  - 14th September 2017 to 20th September 2017. Its no secret the Russian Military trains in the use of Tactical nukes as part of their strategy.

All that you require link provided.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2017/Also-in-2017/zapad-2017-and-euro-atlantic-security-military-exercise-strategic-russia/EN/index.htm

Video. Zapad 2017. (starting to look professional the Russian Military. lessons from the 2008 Georgian adventure well and truly learnt) 

Meanwhile on the Russian Border NATO respond. Its on a knife edge.

6dd23d2b-c2da-4446-9ce9-8196817d1c53.png

 

 

12 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Haven't occurred to you that I've already read that? Are you imagining yourself as some kind of sole info bringer? What a pompous schmuck.

Any signed papers on "not to advance East"? Well, we have signed paper by Russia on Budapest treaty.

The only one thing you got right is bolded one. West should had stopped imperialistic Russian thoughts right in 2008, when Russkies advanced on Georgia.

BTW, NATO knocking down Bosphorus would render Russian South fleet playing Marco-Polo in Black sea...

The chances of you reading that report was slim to none. but lets give you the benefit of the doubt, lets say you read the report before i linked it - then why are you asking questions that the article had all the answers to. bit strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

 

 

 

The chances of you reading that report was slim to none. but lets give you the benefit of the doubt, lets say you read the report before i linked it - then why are you asking questions that the article had all the answers to. bit strange.

So, I can't argue against arguments in article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, and then said:

It's your position that a first strike by Russia (in this instance) could be victorious because static missile locations could be saturated?  I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning.  Physics haven't changed and neither has the ability for either Russia or the U.S. to detect massed numbers of launches in time to retaliate.  The point of the thread was to ponder whether MAD is still accepted as being madness.  The fact that Russian war plans seem to be envisioning surgical nuclear strikes to eliminate "threats" against the Motherland - even if the Motherland's troops are in someone else's backyard - isn't about traditional doctrine.  THIS is a whole new level of crazy.  It lowers the threshold for global disaster and it seems to do so based on some very tenuous assumptions about the reactions that are expected from the U.S. and NATO.  

Its not my position, its the official position of NATO. A prepared first strike (they stockpile and bunker down their population) would achieve complete success at destroying the US. AMD technology is not advanced enough to hit anymore than about 20% of ICBMs. The challenge is threefold:

1. Realistically the only chance of knocking out an ICBM are within its first two minutes off flight. After this its simply travelling too fast for an anti-ICBM missile to reach it. In terms of distance it means the AMD silo needs to ideally be no further than 200km away from the ICBM silo. Outside of 400km there is absolutely no chance . All this means nothing can be done during the launch phase about most Russian ICBMs and its at this stage that most of those 20% will be eliminated..

2. AEGIS cruisers cannot use AMD rounds to reliably knock out ICBMs in space because Russian missiles deploy sophisticated countermeasures. These including MIRVs, fake MIRVs, and radar scattering balloons.

3. Once the MIRVs are undergoing re-entry they are travelling so fast that existing anti-air defences or anti-ICBM missiles cannot eliminate them. 

The only defence is still MAD and if they prepared for the first strike their population survives intact. And yes, the NATO ability to knock out ICBMs cannot even deal with North Korean ones lagging behind by 50 years in technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like my friend like to say it when it comes the Nukes ... Boom shakalaka boom boom ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/12/2017 at 0:15 AM, and then said:

Granting that the U.S. and NATO made seriously unwise moves after the fall of the Soviet Union, at what point do you judge that Putin will decide he has enough deterrence, Bee?  How far are you willing to see him go?  For example, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia could be invaded and crushed in DAYS.  Just a few days.  In war, it is often true that sudden blows have to be absorbed rather than risk even more horrendous losses.  What if NATO and the U.S. decide that those countries represent that red line?  This is my point.  If Putin and his generals miscalculate where that line is, and especially if joint-NATO forces responded quickly enough (with conventional forces) to cause high losses of Russian forces, Putin's new doctrine could mean the annihilation of hundreds or thousands of  U.S., German, French, Polish, and other NATO troops from surgical nuclear escalation.  Can you realistically expect that kind of slaughter to simply be accepted?  This is a highly dangerous new doctrine and the U.S and Putin need to be talking about moving back from this abyss.  Instead, we have one political party in this country doing everything they can to inflame tensions and to delegitimize any efforts at calming the waters by Trump.

 

I'm thinking that this is more or less business as usual for the US and Russian military although the low yield tactical nuclear weapons
signals a new danger to civilians and troops alike -

What is done by the US and allies is portrayed as defensive or a deterrent but what's done by Russia is portrayed as aggressive -
although it is most likely the other way round and this was a telling bit in the article - (Bolded)

Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, said in a speech last August that the military needs small nuclear arms that do not cause massive casualties.

I'm guessing that a case has to made for getting approval for 'small nuclear arms' development / deployment and it's no surprise that the article
busts in to life with the first paragraph ... 

Russia is aggressively building up its nuclear forces and is expected to deploy a total force of 8,000 warheads by 2026 along with modernizing deep underground bunkers, according to Pentagon officials.

If Russia has weapons described in the article there's no way (IMO) that America doesn't already have them but they are
probably bringing it out in the open to make it official..?....

So I think it is already 'accepted' by both 'sides' ---- and the 'knife edge' situation continues -

If Russia is respected and not demonized in the insane way that it is - then everything should be ok -
but if Russia is provoked, it's borders encroached or is subject to European expansion (again) ....
they are not going to roll over - 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bee said:

Instead, we have one political party in this country doing everything they can to inflame tensions and to delegitimize any efforts at calming the waters by Trump.

I agree that Trump is being thwarted  when it comes to having a better relationship with Russia -

The Globalists / Democrats want regime change in Russia to further the One World Government / Economy agenda and if
they manage to get that I expect '''we''' would suddenly be all chummy with them (Russia) and the demonizing would ease up -

edit to add --- but if the New World Order crew push the Russian Bear too far - we could end up having a nasty shock and areas
of the West could end up in the kind of mess that areas of the Middle East has now -- not that that would be of too much
concern to the New World Order lot maybe -- it could even be what they want to an extent - because they are not 
on '''our''' side - no more on ''our''' side than they were on the side of Libyan civilians... ????
 

Edited by bee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bee said:

New World Order

Bee had you referenced the Military Industrial Complex instead of the New World Order, we would be close to agreement on many points you make here. I think Eisenhower's farewell address is in many ways very prophetic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Bee had you referenced the Military Industrial Complex instead of the New World Order, we would be close to agreement on many points you make here. I think Eisenhower's farewell address is in many ways very prophetic.

Perhaps the two  are in fact the same nowadays...?.... or at least the Military Industrial Complex could be in the pocket of the Globalists ..?

Largely owned by them like they seem to own most of the Main Stream Media outlets - 

dunno I haven't listened to the speech for a while but from memory he was warning against powerful forces working outside government
and the democratic process - and this would fit in with the Globalist agenda -   ??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bee said:

warning against powerful forces working outside government
and the democratic process - and this would fit in with the Globalist agenda

Perhaps, who really knows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Perhaps, who really knows.

 

I suppose the '''little people''''  are the last to know (officially) about stuff like that -- 

and by '''little people'' I don't mean leprechauns :D 

although I'm not sure if you're one of the '''little people'' after your remark  the other day about not fitting up a chimney  ;)

but to be fair I wouldn't fit up a chimney either ---- ^_^

 

 

Edited by bee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.