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

Another belief I have is that if Russia attacks Poland because of our then it's a smart strategy to work with. Attack one thing so we're all too count up on that one attack while at the same point you could be slipping in from behind of us and attacking on our own soil while helping your allies (the USA's enemies) get in on our shores as well. Causing normal people to fight as soliders to protect our homeland and our own lives. While the USA's officials are trying to figure out what's going on or going to hide under ground until the time is right to come out. Giving soliders here at home and our allies (USA's friends) come here and help us while also leaving a few of their troops back at home in order to defend their homeland as well. If you ask me, it sounds fairly smart it if you're wanting to make a bigger, larger, more upscaled, attack. Blitzcrekg - Full Scale Surprise Attack.

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

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.

No, you're confusing geographic position with geopolitics. Geopolitics. Geopolitics is far more than a simple occupation of a specific territory, as you're asserting.

And the Thucydides/doctor analogy is absurd. Of course some lessons last forever, but if you think that modern geopolitics can be analyzed in the same way as during the 5th Century B.C., you're in serious need of an update on the last 2400 years of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're confusing geographic position with geopolitics. Geopolitics. Geopolitics is far more than a simple occupation of a specific territory, as you're asserting.

And the Thucydides/doctor analogy is absurd. Of course some lessons last forever, but if you think that modern geopolitics can be analyzed in the same way as during the 5th Century B.C., you're in serious need of an update on the last 2400 years of history.

Thats simply untrue, sorry! WW2 and WW1 were set fully in accordance to Thucydides, I do not know what "modern geopolitics" you mean. The only concern of any without exception wars participants was not to have war on two fronts, as simple as that - the reason why Russia allied with France and England, who were before 1900s its sworn enemies since Crimean War times. The only difference today is that there is more players, say in WW2 USSR was only considering Japan and USA as the threat of 2nd front, but now Russia has to consider China as well. Germany has to be in good stand with France OR with Russia, if this is impossible with both at once, but if France and Germany turn against UK and US, then the latter two would be seeking Russia's assistance... Ally must be on the other side of the opponent, this is the same as for two persons fight back to back - this did not change since the neanderthals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yes - there is a difference in modern geopolitics, even two, one real, one illusionary.

There are missiles now, which fly wherever they are targeted - but they are so technologically advanced and so expensive, that there is a limited amount of them, limited stock. say, 1500 in US hands, 1500 in Russia's, 100 in UK, some in France, 50 in China, 10 in Pakistan, or so close to that. One can not simply launch them and quickly replace by new ones made, as soon as you launch one, you are one missile down in stock. If Russia and US use theirs against each other, then they would remain unprotected against the others who have them and also weakened by the bombing - so they would fall an easy prey of those who still hold theirs. Say, France can force US to surrender - or China can force Russia to surrender, only by the nuclear threat. Therefore these arsenals would NEVER be used. So, these missiles are the illusionary difference.

The real difference is tactical nuclear warfare, little Hiroshima size or slightly larger nukes, delivered by a cropduster, artillery shell, short range missile, slingshot, courier or planted as landmines. Modern war would not look like WW2 because of them, because as soon as you assemble together more than 100 people, they would be spotted and covered by such a little nuke - so, there would be no fronts, no pits, no supply lines, but only mobile isolated little groups acting on commands from the common center. Land occupation would be done by first nuclear bombing the area indepth ahead, and within 24 hours moving tanks in it; then next stage like that etc. At least this is what was planned by USSR for Western Europe, I know because I was doing my military course on the maps of Western Germany. This is a complete scorched earth tactics with no mercy to anyone including own soldiers. US has (methinks) about 10,000 such charges in stock, Russia - twice more, they are not limited by any agreement. Thats why Germany would always be in good stand with Russia, and probably France too. UK feels comparatively safe behind the Channel, so it can allow itself some brawl, knowing that Russian navy is generally worthless, and US feels absolutely invincible until Russia sets up a serious base in Venezuela. This is also the reason why Russia dislikes US bases around its borders...

Nevertheless even tactical nukes do not change the "two fronts" condition, as the remote bases can not be seen as a "front" but only as a threat.

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.