questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #51 Share Posted June 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, Beefers said: I can't blame him. We didn't like missiles in Cuba, he can be p***ed about missiles near Russia. Well, what is little known us that we in fact had missiles in Turkey (or right at the Russian border) at the time. We pulled those off, they pulled theirs off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 1, 2016 #52 Share Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/31/2016 at 6:22 AM, Farmer77 said: So you avoid the point. Comeon man a little intellectual honesty please. We're placing missiles in strategic locations which will keep Russia from being able to defend itself. Would you stand for it if another nation did it to us? Its really a simple question. puton wants to put the ussr back together. he can't do that if Europe claims those nations first, without getting into a war with the usa. specifically if we are defending those nations. I didn't side step any question. the cuba missile crises was about Russia putting nuke missiles in cuba.... the current problem is usa putting weapons in old Russian states, that can shoot down Russian missiles. seems, like a huge difference to me. if Russia wants to put a missile shield in cuba let it. our missiles would still get through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 1, 2016 #53 Share Posted June 1, 2016 24 minutes ago, danielost said: puton wants to put the ussr back together. he can't do that if Europe claims those nations first, without getting into a war with the usa. specifically if we are defending those nations. I didn't side step any question. the cuba missile crises was about Russia putting nuke missiles in cuba.... the current problem is usa putting weapons in old Russian states, that can shoot down Russian missiles. seems, like a huge difference to me. if Russia wants to put a missile shield in cuba let it. our missiles would still get through. Whats your take on the situation with China and their expansion in the South China sea, America is "pivoting" 60% of its military resources to the region to reassure allies in the region. is that a defensive manoeuvre or offensive by the US? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 1, 2016 #54 Share Posted June 1, 2016 defensive. however if china wants to build islands let them. they could be using that money to invade instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 1, 2016 #55 Share Posted June 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, danielost said: defensive. however if china wants to build islands let them. they could be using that money to invade instead. thanks for answering, How far or where is the nearest US territory to the South China sea? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 1, 2016 #56 Share Posted June 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, stevewinn said: thanks for answering, How far or where is the nearest US territory to the South China sea? don't know but we defend the phillipines and taiwan. which border it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #57 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just to add to what danielost said: Mutual Defense Treaty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted June 1, 2016 #58 Share Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/31/2016 at 4:22 AM, Farmer77 said: So you avoid the point. Comeon man a little intellectual honesty please. We're placing missiles in strategic locations which will keep Russia from being able to defend itself. Would you stand for it if another nation did it to us? Its really a simple question. By all means of respect, but your reply shows a distinct lack of knowledge of Russian capabilities with respect to retaliatory options. And one that has been promoted throughout this thread, in my honest opinion. First of all, the shear number of warheads that Russia possess would currently by far overwhelm any missile defense put in place in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, for that matter. Secondly, Russia has a significant fraction of it's nuclear armament on ballistic missile subs, which would be able to completely circumvent the missile defense. Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #59 Share Posted June 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, badeskov said: By all means of respect, but your reply shows a distinct lack of knowledge of Russian capabilities with respect to retaliatory options. And one that has been promoted throughout this thread, in my honest opinion. First of all, the shear number of warheads that Russia possess would currently by far overwhelm any missile defense put in place in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, for that matter. Secondly, Russia has a significant fraction of it's nuclear armament on ballistic missile subs, which would be able to completely circumvent the missile defense. Cheers, Badeskov And not only that. The missile shield would just bother the Russians had they any plans to attack Europe as they have better means to deploy an attack on the US of A. But hey, we know Putin is the victim here.... we know... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #60 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Heh, being cynical, Russkies, nuking Baltics, would solve "oppressed Russian speakers" problem once and for all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted June 1, 2016 #61 Share Posted June 1, 2016 18 minutes ago, questionmark said: And not only that. The missile shield would just bother the Russians had they any plans to attack Europe as they have better means to deploy an attack on the US of A. But hey, we know Putin is the victim here.... we know... Frankly, I can't even see how the missile shield would have any impact on Russian war plans for invading Western Europe. First of all, should Russia decide to invade Western Europe any attack would most likely be conventional and follow old Soviet doctrine with massive tank and armored infantry vehicle penetration through the Fulda Gap and elsewhere. Should the Russians really decide that the nuclear option was the only option, the cruise missile option would be the way to go, There is simply no way in my honest opinion that this missile shield could ever hinder the Russian military in any way, shape or form. Attacking the Continental US, Hawaii or Alaska is a different story.Obviously the Russians would have a hard time putting forces into position for an invasion without being noticed, but on the other hand Russian ballistic nuclear subs have pretty free reign in that respect. Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #62 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, badeskov said: Frankly, I can't even see how the missile shield would have any impact on Russian war plans for invading Western Europe. First of all, should Russia decide to invade Western Europe any attack would most likely be conventional and follow old Soviet doctrine with massive tank and armored infantry vehicle penetration through the Fulda Gap and elsewhere. Should the Russians really decide that the nuclear option was the only option, the cruise missile option would be the way to go, There is simply no way in my honest opinion that this missile shield could ever hinder the Russian military in any way, shape or form. Attacking the Continental US, Hawaii or Alaska is a different story.Obviously the Russians would have a hard time putting forces into position for an invasion without being noticed, but on the other hand Russian ballistic nuclear subs have pretty free reign in that respect. Cheers, Badeskov The Fulda gap is old news. The closest the Russian have any forces to it is about 600 miles away (Kaliningrad), and given how small their territory is there a massive buildup would not go unnoticed. The Polish, Ukrainians, Romanian and the Baltics would be the first target to get to central Europe. And that means that, to the contrary of the cold war, Western Europe would have days of warning to get their act together. The situation has changed. A lot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #63 Share Posted June 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, questionmark said: The Fulda gap is old news. The closest the Russian have any forces to it is about 600 miles away (Kaliningrad), and given how small their territory is there a massive buildup would not go unnoticed. The Polish, Ukrainians, Romanian and the Baltics would be the first target to get to central Europe. And that means that, to the contrary of the cold war, Western Europe would have days of warning to get their act together. The situation has changed. A lot. In expense of Eastern Europe. Honestly, the best thing I expect from Westerners in the case of Russian attack is lots of bureaucratic blabber, and then selling Easterners for few dimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #64 Share Posted June 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said: In expense of Eastern Europe. Honestly, the best thing I expect from Westerners in the case of Russian attack is lots of bureaucratic blabber, and then selling Easterners for few dimes... Don't be shocked if they do come to your aid. After all you are still in the EU and they are working on a doctrine that says an attack on one is an attack on all (despite denying the evident: the creation of a European army as they don't know how long they will be supported by the US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #65 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, questionmark said: Don't be shocked if they do come to your aid. After all you are still in the EU and they are working on a doctrine that says an attack on one is an attack on all (despite denying the evident: the creation of a European army as they don't know how long they will be supported by the US). How did Poland-Britain treaty worked out back in 1939? Where were frog eaters when Pollacks were fighting on two fronts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted June 1, 2016 Author #66 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, danielost said: puton wants to put the ussr back together. And soon we could be looking at the United States of Europe.... Quote FEDERAL EUROPE PLOT: EU draws up plans for United States of Europe behind Britain’s backPLANS for a United States of Europe have been drawn up in a bid to give Brussels bureaucrats an iron grip over the continent, it has been revealed. The paper says “concrete” proposals” to enhance European Union (EU) integration will be drawn up at a meeting in Luxembourg in May, just a month before the UK holds its In/Out referendum on June 23. The news will come as a blow to pro-EU Prime Minister David Cameron who has sought to reassure voters Britain will not be part of a European superstate. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/663946/EU-plans-United-States-Europe eta a wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe . Edited June 1, 2016 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #67 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, bmk1245 said: How did Poland-Britain treaty worked out back in 1939? Where were frog eaters when Pollacks were fighting on two fronts? basically defeated, and thank God (or whomever) Adolf stopped his tanks before they flattened the British expeditionary forces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted June 1, 2016 #68 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Let's be clear, this missile shield, a modification of the aegis naval system, is not about cutting off putin's nuclear strike capability. Strategically this system has little use. Nuclear icbm's are all but uninterceptable, upon a launch detection you would have seconds to launch a viable interception, add into that, a great deal of strike capability is mobile, once that call is made its game over for everyone. Add into this the fact that plans for 2 European sites, this one, and another, for the missile shield have been public for sometime, this is all part of the game of thrones, whoever said the Cold War had ended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #69 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, Grey Area said: Let's be clear, this missile shield, a modification of the aegis naval system, is not about cutting off putin's nuclear strike capability. Strategically this system has little use. Nuclear icbm's are all but uninterceptable, upon a launch detection you would have seconds to launch a viable interception, add into that, a great deal of strike capability is mobile, once that call is made its game over for everyone. Add into this the fact that plans for 2 European sites, this one, and another, for the missile shield have been public for sometime, this is all part of the game of thrones, whoever said the Cold War had ended? The Cold War basically started again when Putin tried to convert the Ukraine into a client start, as he had done with Belarus before. Did not work and he tried with violence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #70 Share Posted June 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, questionmark said: basically defeated, and thank God (or whomever) Adolf stopped his tanks before they flattened the British expeditionary forces Yeah, and Pollacks (and other Eastern countries) falling in the laps of "loving" Russia, afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #71 Share Posted June 1, 2016 17 minutes ago, seeder said: And soon we could be looking at the United States of Europe.... eta a wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe . Way better than USSR 2.0 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #72 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, bmk1245 said: Yeah, and Pollacks (and other Eastern countries) falling in the laps of "loving" Russia, afterwards. Well, the Russians had to get something for helping to defeat Adolf, now whether that was an especially well planned thing is a different story. The alternative would have been to rearm the Germans and continue against the Russians (because you certainly don't want the Germans behind your back... armed or not). But after the discovery of the concentration camps (and not knowing about the Russian equivalents) pretty much killed that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #73 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, questionmark said: Well, the Russians had to get something for helping to defeat Adolf, now whether that was an especially well planned thing is a different story. The alternative would have been to rearm the Germans and continue against the Russians (because you certainly don't want the Germans behind your back... armed or not). But after the discovery of the concentration camps (and not knowing about the Russian equivalents) pretty much killed that option. Damn, we are getting into the realm of alternative history. What if all had armed to stop Hitler (and his patsies) before he wrecked half of the world? What if Baltics would have stood against USSR, as Finns did? What if... I wonder, how Russkies would have performed without lend-lease... Edited June 1, 2016 by bmk1245 Edit to add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 1, 2016 #74 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, bmk1245 said: Damn, we are getting into the realm of alternative history. What if all had armed to stop Hitler (and his patsies) before he wrecked half of the world? What if Baltics would have stood against USSR, as Finns did? What if... Well, what if the dog had not stopped to poop... he would have gotten the rabbit. The past is done, lets face the future and hope to make something better than what was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 1, 2016 #75 Share Posted June 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, questionmark said: Well, what if the dog had not stopped to poop... he would have gotten the rabbit. The past is done, lets face the future and hope to make something better than what was. Yeah, past is done, but if you forget the past, and do not learn the lesson, you destined to repeat it. Thats what I'm afraid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now