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 -

Russia threaten nuclear strike on Poland


secondhand
 Share

Recommended Posts

You do not know what you are talking about. In both cases:

Any missile which can put a satellite on the orbit is by itself capable to orbit the planet - and this makes it an ICBM. Three stages - this is the criterion.

20 million Muslims in Russia are secular Muslims, I was drinking spirits with them, followed by raw salted pig fat. They are no more Muslims than I myself am an Orthodox Christian, religion in Russia is just a tradition mostly, and the absolute majority is Atheistic. You can find "real Muslims" in some remote villages or in the former Asian republics of USSR, but hardly in Russia. All insurgency centers there are set up by the Saudis, who come and open their medreses to brainwash the youngsters.

I very much know what I am talking about and have done the research to prove it. Again, ICBMs are differentiated by having greater range and speed than other ballistic missiles: intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), and the newly-named theatre ballistic missiles.

Yes, Iran launched an satellite into orbit. Do you know how high that was....hundreds of miles...not thousands. If the Iranians had ICBM's they would be able to reach New York. Are you trying to tell me that Iran has that capability.

Here is a list of nations with ICBM's.

Current and former U.S. ballistic missiles

* Atlas (SM-65, CGM-16) former ICBM launched from silo, the rocket is now used for other purposes

* Titan I (SM-68, HGM-25A) Based in underground launch complexes.

* Titan II (SM-68B, LGM-25C) — former ICBM launched from silo, the rocket is now used for other purposes

* Minuteman I (SM-80, LGM-30A/B, HSM-80)

* Minuteman II (LGM-30F)

* Minuteman III (LGM-30G) — launched from silo — as of November, 2006, there are 500 Minuteman III missiles in active inventory

* LGM-118A Peacekeeper / MX (LGM-118A) — silo-based; decommissioned in May 2006

* Midgetman — has never been operational — launched from mobile launcher

* Polaris A1, A2, A3 — (UGM-27/A/B/C) former SLBM

* Poseidon C3 — (UGM-73) former SLBM

* Trident — (UGM-93A/B) SLBM — Trident II (D5) was first deployed in 1990 and is planned to be deployed past 2020.

Soviet/Russian

Specific types of Soviet/Russian ICBMs include:

* MR-UR-100 Sotka / 15A15/ SS-17 Spanker

* R7 Semyorka / 8K71 / SS-6 Sapwood

* R-9 Desna / SS-8 Sasin

* R-16 SS-7 Saddler

* R-36 SS-9 Scarp

* R-36M2 Voevoda / SS-18 Satan

* RS-24 is MIRV-equipped and thermonuclear. It has two tests since 2005.

* RT-23 Molodets / SS-24 Scalpel

* RT-2PM Topol / 15Zh58 / SS-25 Sickle

* RT-2UTTKh Topol M / SS-27

* UR-100 8K84 / SS-11 Sego

* UR-100N 15A30 / SS-19 Stiletto

People's Republic of China

Specific types of Chinese ICBMs called Dong Feng ("East Wind").

* DF-3 — cancelled. Program name transferred to a MRBM.

* DF-5 CSS-4 — silo based, 13,000+ km range.

* DF-6 — cancelled

* DF-22 — cancelled by 1995.

* DF-31 CSS-9 — silo and road mobile, 7,200+ km range.

* DF-31A CSS-9 — silo and road mobile, 11,200+ km range.

* DF-41 CSS-X-10 — cancelled, replaced by DF-31A

France

France only deploys submarine launched ICBMs, with all land based ones decommissioned

* M4 — Decommissioned in 2003.

* M45 — In service.

* M51.1 — Expected to enter service in 2010.

* M51.2 — Expected to enter service in 2015.

India

* Surya-I/Agni-IV - up to 6,000 km range (2010)[10][11][10][12]

* Surya-II[13]

* Surya-III[13] (Speculated)

Israel

* Jericho III — 6,000–7,800 km range suspected to be stockpiled throughout Israel

N. Korea

* Taepodong-2 estimated 5,000–6,000 km range

As for Muslims in Russia, I already posted the facts on that as well. You told us a story from some of your buddies. I guess the UM members can decide for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • danielost

    8

  • Cleomenes

    9

  • puridalan

    9

  • MARAB0D

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Its quite amazeing what evil man can bring upon himself and the destruction of our world as we know it can be over in a flash of Anger. Its not a simple thing to live in peace with one another,But it is simple to see what could be done to ease the tennsion between all Nations. Mankind`s hunger for power over everything he thinks He`s in control over. Get rid of the Macho-Macheese-Mo Leaders in the position`s of finger pointing and Start a system of unconditional Love and peace towards each other, understanding the millions of years of evolution as a species of warlike behavour and the suffering we inflict to our fellow man. This is all Greed based in most parts of the world.Maybe its time to try a new Game plan? IMO we need to let our good out weigh our agression and fear traits. maybe speed more time helping one another and not looking at the differences ,but revel in the fact`s that we can all be different. War makes only Loss,a negitive of mans worst behavour. All of the world is ready to move into a NEw Era Of Peace. ITs a start THat old 60`s saying Make Love not War is way over due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should come as no surprise to anyone that Putin,let's face it is still running things,would make such a threat.Soviets see the US as incroaching on their territory. Would not be surprised if they don't do the same in the Ukraine and other places like they are doing Georgia. What their motives behind the georgia action is I don't know,but that is the concern of the Ukraine,Poland and other such folk.their worried the Soviets might try to take over again and run things like they did before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should come as no surprise to anyone that Putin,let's face it is still running things,would make such a threat.Soviets see the US as incroaching on their territory. Would not be surprised if they don't do the same in the Ukraine and other places like they are doing Georgia. What their motives behind the georgia action is I don't know,but that is the concern of the Ukraine,Poland and other such folk.their worried the Soviets might try to take over again and run things like they did before.

I doubt that Poland may suffer in any way from this possible expansion; on the contrary, Poland may benefit by participating in partitioning Ukraine and maybe even Belarus, as it would have some chance to annex the western areas of them, populated by the Poles. I doubt very much that Russia is targeting reestablishing USSR, as the territories annexed by Stalin in 1939 in the west were annexed by mistake - being a Georgian, he was not fully aware of what sort of relationships exist between the Slavic nations and genuinely thought that Western Ukrainians were the same Russians as in Moscow. It is quite possible that Russia may be now trying to get rid of the areas with non-Russian population in the western part. Today theyare driven by nationalism, not by expansionism, and are only interested in Russian population. Poland, however, may suffer later, if Germany decides to do the same and claims Silesia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that Poland may suffer in any way from this possible expansion; on the contrary, Poland may benefit by participating in partitioning Ukraine and maybe even Belarus, as it would have some chance to annex the western areas of them, populated by the Poles. I doubt very much that Russia is targeting reestablishing USSR, as the territories annexed by Stalin in 1939 in the west were annexed by mistake - being a Georgian, he was not fully aware of what sort of relationships exist between the Slavic nations and genuinely thought that Western Ukrainians were the same Russians as in Moscow. It is quite possible that Russia may be now trying to get rid of the areas with non-Russian population in the western part. Today theyare driven by nationalism, not by expansionism, and are only interested in Russian population. Poland, however, may suffer later, if Germany decides to do the same and claims Silesia.

This isn't the 1930's. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart observation! So, who is different now - Poles or Germans?

Based on your claims above, I'd sure like to see you answer that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's patently obvious that Germany is far different now than it was under the 3rd Reich. Would you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not know what you are talking about. In both cases:

Any missile which can put a satellite on the orbit is by itself capable to orbit the planet - and this makes it an ICBM. Three stages - this is the criterion.

20 million Muslims in Russia are secular Muslims, I was drinking spirits with them, followed by raw salted pig fat. They are no more Muslims than I myself am an Orthodox Christian, religion in Russia is just a tradition mostly, and the absolute majority is Atheistic. You can find "real Muslims" in some remote villages or in the former Asian republics of USSR, but hardly in Russia. All insurgency centers there are set up by the Saudis, who come and open their medreses to brainwash the youngsters.

The shuttle only use two stages to get to space. A space plain would only need one stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's patently obvious that Germany is far different now than it was under the 3rd Reich. Would you disagree?

The only country that has changed a lot since ww2 is the usa and not for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's patently obvious that Germany is far different now than it was under the 3rd Reich. Would you disagree?

I see the same country with the same name, same population, same language, same culture and same geopolitical interests. Name the points of difference, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only country that has changed a lot since ww2 is the usa and not for the better.

You think Germany is the same now, as it was during WWII? Could you please try to quantify this claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Germany is the same now, as it was during WWII? Could you please try to quantify this claim?

It is peace now, not war. When we see Germany in WW3 we would be able to compare it to Germany in WW2, not before. And before WW2 Germany was a respected member of League of Nations and a leading European industrial state - same as today. It does not matter who is in power... All the difference now is nuclear weapons which Germany does not have - but it has two possible nuclear allies instead, France and Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the same country with the same name, same population, same language, same culture and same geopolitical interests. Name the points of difference, please.

:no:

Gladly.

First off, it doesn't have the same name. During WWII it was, officially, the German Reich, and later the Greater German Reich. Today, it's officially the Federal Republic of Germany. It does not have the same name as it did during WWII. These differences in name represent a vast difference in type of government, as Germany is now a federal parliamentary republic instead of a fascist dictatorship. See the difference? -1

Second, its population is vastly different. Nazi Germany had a very homogenous 1937 population of just under 70 million. Modern Germany has a population of around 82 million that now includes a very large number of foreigners. -1

Third, Germany still has the same official language, but now has numerous other tongues spoken by its resident. +1

Fourth, this largely depends on how culture is defined. I would say the culture of Germany is somewhat similar to pre-WWII German culture. Significantly, there are far more diverse influences on German culture than ever before, which have certainly changed it. I'll be generous and give you a +1.

Fifth, the difference between WWII and modern German geopolitical interest could easily fill a doctoral dissertation, which I am not going to attempt to undertake here. Suffice it to say that the post-war conditions placed upon Germany, along with its membership in NATO and especially the EU, have entirely changed German geopolitical realities and goals. Germany has a relatively small military and has a constitutional provision that forbids it to go to war under any circumstance other than for national defense. Need I name a contrast with Nazi Germany in this regard? Germany no longer has any form of militaristic culture or ambitions, no longer shows any desire to expand its borders, no longer has such a rigid racial ideology, and no longer shows any desire to create an empire and forge its "place in the sun." A very big -1.

Taken together, you score a very generous 2/5 (40%), and that is only because I am playing your game and splitting hairs. The actual differences (especially in terms of political culture, national consciousness, relative military power, relative economic power, and diplomatic standing) are vast and almost incomprehensible. Anyone who really thinks Germany is the same country that it was under the 3rd Reich is totally and utterly ignorant to the realities of the modern world.

Info:

Germany

Nazi Germany

Edited by Cleomenes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Germany is the same now, as it was during WWII? Could you please try to quantify this claim?

different leader so slightly different. Germany is still doing what it can to cash in on what ever it can do under the table

The USA has over 500 different leaders from world war 2 not counting state and local governments. That is 500 directions that this country is trying to be pulled in. True about 250 are trying to pull it in one direction or the other. The other difference is that they have stopped trying to work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:no:

Gladly.

First off, it doesn't have the same name. During WWII it was, officially, the German Reich, and later the Greater German Reich. Today, it's officially the Federal Republic of Germany. It does not have the same name as it did during WWII. These differences in name represent a vast difference in type of government, as Germany is now a federal parliamentary republic instead of a fascist dictatorship. See the difference? -1

Second, its population is vastly different. Nazi Germany had a very homogenous 1937 population of just under 70 million. Modern Germany has a population of around 82 million that now includes a very large number of foreigners. -1

Third, Germany still has the same official language, but now has numerous other tongues spoken by its resident. +1

Fourth, this largely depends on how culture is defined. I would say the culture of Germany is somewhat similar to pre-WWII German culture. Significantly, there are far more diverse influences on German culture than ever before, which have certainly changed it. I'll be generous and give you a +1.

Fifth, the difference between WWII and modern German geopolitical interest could easily fill a doctoral dissertation, which I am not going to attempt to undertake here. Suffice it to say that the post-war conditions placed upon Germany, along with its membership in NATO and especially the EU, have entirely changed German geopolitical realities and goals. Germany has a relatively small military and has a constitutional provision that forbids it to go to war under any circumstance other than for national defense. Need I name a contrast with Nazi Germany in this regard? Germany no longer has any form of militaristic culture or ambitions, no longer shows any desire to expand its borders, no longer has such a rigid racial ideology, and no longer shows any desire to create an empire and forge its "place in the sun." A very big -1.

Taken together, you score a very generous 2/5 (40%), and that is only because I am playing your game and splitting hairs. The actual differences (especially in terms of political culture, national consciousness, relative military power, relative economic power, and diplomatic standing) are vast and almost incomprehensible. Anyone who really thinks Germany is the same country that it was under the 3rd Reich is totally and utterly ignorant to the realities of the modern world.

Info:

Germany

Nazi Germany

Before Hitler took power they were more or less the same as what you state above. The 3rd Reich is Hitler's baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:no:

Gladly.

First off, it doesn't have the same name. During WWII it was, officially, the German Reich, and later the Greater German Reich. Today, it's officially the Federal Republic of Germany. It does not have the same name as it did during WWII. These differences in name represent a vast difference in type of government, as Germany is now a federal parliamentary republic instead of a fascist dictatorship. See the difference? -1

Second, its population is vastly different. Nazi Germany had a very homogenous 1937 population of just under 70 million. Modern Germany has a population of around 82 million that now includes a very large number of foreigners. -1

Third, Germany still has the same official language, but now has numerous other tongues spoken by its resident. +1

Fourth, this largely depends on how culture is defined. I would say the culture of Germany is somewhat similar to pre-WWII German culture. Significantly, there are far more diverse influences on German culture than ever before, which have certainly changed it. I'll be generous and give you a +1.

Fifth, the difference between WWII and modern German geopolitical interest could easily fill a doctoral dissertation, which I am not going to attempt to undertake here. Suffice it to say that the post-war conditions placed upon Germany, along with its membership in NATO and especially the EU, have entirely changed German geopolitical realities and goals. Germany has a relatively small military and has a constitutional provision that forbids it to go to war under any circumstance other than for national defense. Need I name a contrast with Nazi Germany in this regard? Germany no longer has any form of militaristic culture or ambitions, no longer shows any desire to expand its borders, no longer has such a rigid racial ideology, and no longer shows any desire to create an empire and forge its "place in the sun." A very big -1.

Taken together, you score a very generous 2/5 (40%), and that is only because I am playing your game and splitting hairs. The actual differences (especially in terms of political culture, national consciousness, relative military power, relative economic power, and diplomatic standing) are vast and almost incomprehensible. Anyone who really thinks Germany is the same country that it was under the 3rd Reich is totally and utterly ignorant to the realities of the modern world.

Info:

Germany

Nazi Germany

Reich it is or Republic - it is still Germany, not India or Turkey or England.

Germans are still living there, speaking German and sitting in their Bundestag instead of Reichstag and listening to what their Chancellor says. If instead of Jews as in 1930s you can see the Turks, what difference it makes?

Geopolitical interests of absolutely any country are based on one the same principle - not to allow the war on two fronts. Period. This is known already for 2500 years after the theory of geopolitics and mechanisms of Diplomacy were studied by Thucydides in "Peloponnese war". This is the only consideration which is geopolitical interests are based on. Germany is realistically threatened by France in the west and Russia in the East, while Poland is used as a buffer, they partition it when they are both hungry for fight, trying to satisfy each other. That means as the location and neighboring countries did not change for Germany, then its geopolitical interests are the same as were before.

It is quite interesting to read Peloponnese War, I suggest you do it with the map of ancient Greece nearby - because it describes the mechanisms how the countries "think" and how they form alliances. But, as I said, it is only one main consideration - everyone tries to have war on a single front only, as two fronts almost always mean the loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add - interesting that Peloponnese War can be seen as a sort of a world war of antiquity, by the number of countries which took part in it. And the most interesting that it started because of ... "missile defense shield". Figuratively speaking of course. For Athens fleet was most important force, as they could quickly seal Spartan coast and ports with it. But their main port, Pyraeus, was at a certain distance from the city, so if the city walls were suddenly surrounded by a land army, they could not get to the ships. The decision was made to connect the port with the city with so-called "long walls". Sparta immediately felt threat (same as Russia now!) and started a 2-year long negotiations trying to prevent this construction - Athenians were stretching time and preparing building materials, and then they quickly erected the walls. Sparta had no other choice but to attack Athens, threatening to destroy the city. The war lasted for 30 years until Athens was defeated. These long walls are absolutely the same as missile defense shield, if one looks from the position of military tactics of that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add - interesting that Peloponnese War can be seen as a sort of a world war of antiquity, by the number of countries which took part in it. And the most interesting that it started because of ... "missile defense shield". Figuratively speaking of course. For Athens fleet was most important force, as they could quickly seal Spartan coast and ports with it. But their main port, Pyraeus, was at a certain distance from the city, so if the city walls were suddenly surrounded by a land army, they could not get to the ships. The decision was made to connect the port with the city with so-called "long walls". Sparta immediately felt threat (same as Russia now!) and started a 2-year long negotiations trying to prevent this construction - Athenians were stretching time and preparing building materials, and then they quickly erected the walls. Sparta had no other choice but to attack Athens, threatening to destroy the city. The war lasted for 30 years until Athens was defeated. These long walls are absolutely the same as missile defense shield, if one looks from the position of military tactics of that time.

Sounds more like what Iran is doing. Talking about not building their nukes at the same time building their nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds more like what Iran is doing. Talking about not building their nukes at the same time building their nukes.

Yes, Iran does the same - everyone does the same. Defensive measures enhance the capability of own offensive measures, make them more efficient. So, to build advanced defences is the same as to build offensive arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Hitler took power they were more or less the same as what you state above. The 3rd Reich is Hitler's baby.

You're obviously not interested in substantive, historical analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reich it is or Republic - it is still Germany, not India or Turkey or England.

Germans are still living there, speaking German and sitting in their Bundestag instead of Reichstag and listening to what their Chancellor says. If instead of Jews as in 1930s you can see the Turks, what difference it makes?

Geopolitical interests of absolutely any country are based on one the same principle - not to allow the war on two fronts. Period. This is known already for 2500 years after the theory of geopolitics and mechanisms of Diplomacy were studied by Thucydides in "Peloponnese war". This is the only consideration which is geopolitical interests are based on. Germany is realistically threatened by France in the west and Russia in the East, while Poland is used as a buffer, they partition it when they are both hungry for fight, trying to satisfy each other. That means as the location and neighboring countries did not change for Germany, then its geopolitical interests are the same as were before.

It is quite interesting to read Peloponnese War, I suggest you do it with the map of ancient Greece nearby - because it describes the mechanisms how the countries "think" and how they form alliances. But, as I said, it is only one main consideration - everyone tries to have war on a single front only, as two fronts almost always mean the loss.

While I agree that studying the Peloponnesian War is interesting, you must have a disconnect from reality if you think that geopolitical strategy and interests are the same as they were 2500 years ago, or that they are the same for Germany now as they were in 1939. What hasn't changed is Germany's relative geographic position; it's geopolitical situation is entirely different. Read my previous post for details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that studying the Peloponnesian War is interesting, you must have a disconnect from reality if you think that geopolitical strategy and interests are the same as they were 2500 years ago, or that they are the same for Germany now as they were in 1939. What hasn't changed is Germany's relative geographic position; it's geopolitical situation is entirely different. Read my previous post for details.

You confuse economic policies with geopolitics. The latter is called like that because it is derived from Geography mostly, it is always based on political map - and political map of Europe did not change much since 1939, Germany still has the same neighbours. They tried to change geopolitics by establishing EU as a single state - but this project did not work, as such union is good for everyone from economic point of view but can not resolve geopolitical fears - because geopolitics is based on the fear of losing national identity. Local elites feel happy and does not want to join foreign elites, they want to steal from them. Europe was united several times already - Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, 3rd Reich, EU... And yet it was always falling apart, as centrifugal processes never stop, just look at Scotland and Belgium. At the moment worldwide separatism and nationalism are on the raise - Chechnya, Quebec, Flandria, Sudettenland, Basques, Greenland, Kosovo, Ossetia, Reconquista etc.

It is your choice to disbelieve Thucydides like it is your choice to disbelieve your doctor. But so far for 2500 years after him one the same theme is repeated over and over, irrelevantly to whether the politicians are aware of Peloponnesse war or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only a threat. If Russia attacks Poland it will be the dumbest mistake they could make. And Russia is not that dumb.

that's what they said years ago about people in Germany during WW2 and the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and Desert shield. And then the most recent even still in people minds was 9/11. People said that there was no one dumb enough to ever attack the USA knowing what would happen. So don't make suggestions like that.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.