Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Russian Nuclear Threat
WZeranski    8/23/2001 8:49:33 AM
How valuable or viable is a treaty with a nation which no longer exists? Russia with a third world nation with first world weapons and has no viable system to secure their present stock of weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
joeMendla@uog.edu/rfk    RE:The Russian Nuclear Threat   10/25/2001 10:48:45 PM
The anticipated slow but steady proliferation of NBC and missle technology made the ABM and SALT treaties obsolete before they could be put into action. The Democratic congressional majority throughout the 1960's to early 1990's themselves did not approve of the treaties because of factual and or perceived advantages it gave to the USSR, regardless of whom was President . The USA has nothing to be apologize for in regards to being an open society where divisions occur in the ranks of our national leadership.We are a democracy and a republican form of government. Also, the then USSR was still committed to overt and covert warfare as the means of proliferating communist socialism. The Leninist principle that communism is different from general socialism precisely because of its willingness to resort to war, was still accepted by Soviet leaders throughout the course of the Cold War, even by Mr. Glasnost and Perestroika himself M. Gorbachev. The only reasons for the Russians to still demand adherence to an obsolete treaty is because they want to constrain or limit the US ability to be competitive, especially for their own purposes in a Russian state where the old commie bureacracies still hold all REAL POWER under the shadow guise of preventing social chaos. Russian troops are not in the former SSR's not to protect Russian citizens but to ensure MOscow can take over in a pinch when socialism has sufficiently recovered, or the Western capitalist states sufficiently deteriorated, for Russia to become globally dominant. This is precisely what Bill Clinton had in mind when he developed the concept of globalist "nation-building" where the US must downgrade its military superiority, its economic flexibility, and its democratic mechanisms to support stagnant or depressed hostile third world and socialist states, where the latter don't have to make changes to their domestic/national systems or processes because only the USA has to, because the USA is so powerful and wealthy and free these other states have the right to see the US overregulate itself just like they do. If the USA is not careful and does indeed downgrade its strength, the only thing our "new communist" friendsRussia and China will do is to begin to produce 000's of light to medium AFV's to support a direct invasion of North America. I believe it was Sun Tzu who said," Invulnerability depends on one's self, the enemy's vulnerability depends on him alone", indicating, among other meanings, that opposing camps are not responsible for the other's strengths or weaknesses. Russia and China have numerour current, and future, opportunities to work with the US in peace, and preclude war. It is their choice, by themselves for themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

Themba    RE:The Russian Nuclear Threat   10/26/2001 1:31:43 AM
In deference to your opinion, you need to keep the events in their proper historical light. A. Proliferation of Ballistic missiles and nuclear technology were controlled more during the cold war, then today. (Those missiles in Cuba were under direct Soviet Control, just as our Perishing in Europe were under the control of the President.) B. ABM was done for the purpose of opening arms control negotiations, and prevent one side from developing a survival capability that would make it possible to carry out a first strike without fear of retaliation. (Hence the Soviets overwhelming fear of Star Wars.) C. Salt was actually withdrawn from the Senates consideration after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (kind of an interesting irony considering our current situation), before that it was likely that SALT 1 and 2 would have been ratified. D. A Missile and bomber gap died shortly after Kennedy?s election, and it never actually existed until the mid to late seventies, even then it was negligible. (most estimated it to take only 250-350 nuclear weapons to annihilate the whole Soviet Union.) Now a bit of present reality 1. This is actually a mix of history and present. China and Russia do not get along. 2. In Russia, the mob has more power then anyone including the government. 3. Russia does not now nor are they likely in the future going to be capable of reconstitute the Soviet Union, or anything like it. 4. Most of the Bureaucrats have either been purge by intention, or because they would rather get paid. 5. Bill Clinton for all of his faults, an intention of destroying the west to allow Russia to rise was not one of them. (Man it is a strange world when I defend that man.) 6. Neither China nor Russia can afford to get in an arms race with the US, and even if they did, they can build all the AFV they want, because they won?t be able to get them to us. (China would be stretched to invade Taiwan, and Russia has not exactly shown itself to be a might army.) 7. Any relationship involves two participants. Don?t get me wrong, I do not trust Russia, and I definitely do not trust China, but there is major difference from that and what appears to me to be your belief in their conspiracy to destroy us.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics