Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Pariah Offline OP
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Russia Preparing for possible Nuclear War

Russia Calling Their Exchange Students Back Home:

https://archive.fo/RJoIA

Russia Preparing for Nuclear War:

https://archive.fo/xzhEp

Russia Reveals E-War Tech to Overpower all US Nukes and Modern Aircraft

Radio-Electronic System supposedly used in Ukraine before:

https://archive.fo/oi12C

Pulsed Electron Beam. In terms of performance capabilities, the complex has no competitors in the world. Capable to be mounted on Missiles who can create a Nuke-Like EMP Dome:

https://archive.fo/uXm5p

Article on Russia using E-War in Ukraine and American military cucked into just watching:

https://archive.fo/0oqP0




Sorry for the formatting and all the archiving, but I don't have time to submit a properly written post right now. Suffice it to say, if king retard decides to declare war over Syria, we're hard-pressed to have a response for nuclear-mounted ballistic EMPs.

If anyone's wondering, this is the reason that the US couldn't secure a no-fly zone in Syria.

At best, a re-ignition of the Col War. At worst, an overture to World War III.

I have quite a bit a to say on this--as well as previous Russia threads--but I can't get to it right now. So, more later, hopefully today.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Russian Television Warns of Nuclear War Amid US Tensions

 Quote:

By PATRICK REEVELL
Oct 14, 2016, 4:32 PM ET

With diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point since the Cold War, turning on Russian television can be an alarming experience. For the past month, Russian media outlets have been punctuated with reports asking people whether they are ready for nuclear war.

"If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now," according to one particularly fevered report on the Russian state-owned channel, NTV.

Russia’s main current affairs show, hosted by a presenter known by critics as the country’s propagandist-in-chief, recently spent two hours warning that Russia would defend itself with nuclear arms.

"We’ve had it with American abuse over Syria," the show’s host, Evgeny Kiselyov, told his audience. "Impudent behavior," from the U.S. towards Russia, he said, can now take on "nuclear dimensions."

Anti-Americanism is not rare on Russian state news, nor is an inclination for the apocalyptic. But more notable than the intensity of the warnings has been how Russian government ministries have joined in the alarms in recent weeks. Since September, Russia has conducted a nationwide civil defense drill, purportedly involving 40 million people, preparing them for catastrophes -- among them nuclear fallout. Russia’s military announced who would run the country in the event of war and ran an exercise simulating that in the south.

Even more bluntly, Russia announced this week it was moving nuclear-capable ballistic missiles into its Northern European enclave, Kaliningrad, putting them within striking distance of Western capitals. In the same week, Russia test-fired 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Such moves have further raised the temperature with the West, already exceptionally high since the U.S. publicly accused Moscow of trying to interfere in its presidential elections and efforts by the two countries to reach a cease-fire deal terrorists in Syria, collapsed amid mutual recrimination and the renewal of ferocious airstrikes by Russian jets on the besieged city of Aleppo.

But the blood-curdling statements and military posturing, however, are very far from heralding imminent war, analysts said.

"It’s ridiculous," said Aleksander Baunov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center. "It’s not preparation for war."

Like other Russia observers, he said the atomic-fueled reports and exercises may have several purposes, but none of them were to prepare the populace for major conflict. The nuclear threats, while frightening, reflected a sense in Russia that they could be made without real fear of being taken sincerely.

"The ease with which people in this country use the nuclear threat in their aggressive rhetoric is truly amazing and of course alarming," Maria Lipman, a veteran Russian analyst and editor-in-chief of Counterpoint journal.

That relative unconcern is perhaps reflected in that the war talk does not appear to have much traction among Russians. What's more Baunov said, anti-Americanism not especially high among ordinary people currently, limited he said to official discourse.

That discourse, rather than heralding war, Baunov said, was meant to deter Western countries from intervening in Syria and in particular perhaps was meant to prevent the U.S. from responding too strongly to suspected Russian interference in the U.S. elections. Moscow, he said, is trying to set the field ahead of an incoming U.S. president, whoever wins.

"They want to touch bottom and then to try to go up," he said. "Any responsible politician ... if you are responsible and experienced, it cannot start with further downgrading already bad relations, if they are already at bottom."

The fevered rhetoric on television and pointed deployments of nuclear launch vehicles recalled the height of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Russia too sought to guarantee against Western intervention and buttress support for its actions at home. This time, the chances of a real military confrontation between Russia and the U.S. have risen dramatically since Washington indicated it was considering launching airstrikes against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to halt his brutal bombardment of Aleppo and push Moscow and Assad back to the negotiating table. Russia’s Defense Ministry has bluntly warned the U.S. not to intervene, threatening to shoot down any aircraft targeting Assad’s forces.

But still few expect the Obama administration to approve such an intervention, which would abandon years of policy avoiding direct military intervention against Assad, at a moment when it also risked provoking an armed clash with Russia.

Lipman warned the two countries' perilously diverging goals in Syria and an escalating logic in their exchanges, could see that confrontation spiral unpredictably out of control. "I think this is unprecedented," she said. "One reckless move could turn what until now has still been a Syrian conflict into something I don't even want to think about."

Beyond geopolitical clashes, though, there may also be a more prosaic reason for the war talk -- Russia's military budget is currently up for consideration at a time when the economy is in trouble, weighed down by low oil prices and Western sanctions over the Kremlin's foreign military ventures.

"The more tension the better for the Russian General Staff," Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst in Moscow, said. "Tensions are going to rise and rise and rise."
"The good news is no one really wants a war," he added. "But it’s going to be a good show."

For ordinary Russians it appeared an overly familiar show. Though often describing themselves as outraged by U.S. behavior in Syria, most seemed inured to the suggestions of possible nuclear doom, taking a more realistic view of the television warnings. Photos appeared on social media from a suburban apartment block where pranksters or enterprising fraudsters had pinned fliers to a stairwell asking residents to begin donating cash for the construction of a local bomb shelter.

"Hurry, places are limited," the fliers read.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Russia Is Preparing for a Nuclear War With the United States

 Quote:
by Michael Snyder
October 10, 2016.


In Russia there is talk that war with the United States is inevitable, and they are feverishly preparing to win such a war when it happens.

Thanks to tensions over Ukraine, Syria and the price of oil, U.S. relations with Russia are the worst that they have been since at least the end of the Cold War. In fact, one false move could result in U.S. and Russian forces shooting at each other in Syria as you will see below.

The Russians have worked incredibly hard to upgrade and modernize their military in recent years, but meanwhile the U.S. military is being transformed into a radically politically-correct social experiment by the Obama administration. Most Americans simply assume that we will never fight a war with Russia, and that if for some reason we did that we would win easily. Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically over the past decade, and the truth is that the Russians now have the upper hand.

Most Americans are accustomed to thinking that we have such an overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal that nobody would ever dare mess with us. At one time that was true, but now it isn't. In fact, the size of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal has been reduced by more than 95 percent since the end of the Cold War, and now the Russians actually have more deployed nuclear warheads than we do. The following comes from the Daily Beast:


  • While the U.S. military has been steadily cutting the number of nukes it loads on submarines and bombers and in missile silos, Russian forces have recently been adding more.

    Seemingly more worrying for the United States, Russia's 1,796 deployed warheads exceed—by a whopping 246 weapons—the cap of 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons that Moscow and Washington agreed to as part of the 2011 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

    The United States, meanwhile, is already well below the New START cap. America's missile submarines, nuclear-capable heavy bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are armed with just 1,367 warheads, the State Department says.


But it isn't just the number of warheads that we need to be concerned about. The Russians have developed a brand-new intercontinental ballistic missile known as "the Sarmat" that is far more advanced than anything the U.S. currently has deployed.


  • The Sarmat will weigh at least 100-tons and carry a 10-ton payload. That means the missile could carry as many as 15 independently targeted thermo-nuclear warheads. It has a range of at least 6,000 miles. Once it is operational, it will be the largest ICBM ever built.

    Like other modern Russian ICBMs such as the Yars, Topol-M and the Bulava, the Sarmat is being designed specifically to overcome ballistic missile defenses using a combination of decoys, a host of countermeasures and sheer speed. It might also be equipped with maneuvering warheads—which would make it much more difficult to intercept.


We have no way to stop the Sarmat, so once it is launched, we are defenseless against it.

And each missile carries 15 independently targeted warheads, and so that means that for each missile that goes up, 15 warheads come down. Every one of those warheads can be directed to a different city, and so one Sarmat missile could essentially destroy an area approximately the size of Texas.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military continues to use hopelessly outdated technology. 60 Minutes has shown that many of our nuclear silos are still using rotary phones and the kind of 8-inch floppy disks that you can hold in your hand and actually flop around. And the Obama administration plans to keep Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles that were originally deployed in the 1960s and 1970s in service until 2030.

Of even greater concern than the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile are the "black hole submarines" that Russia has developed. These stealth submarines are so quiet and so invisible that they can come right up to our coastlines without us even knowing that they are there.

So someday a fleet of Russian submarines may suddenly surface just off both coasts, launch a barrage of nuclear missiles at us, and we would only have moments to try to decide what to do before our cities, our nuclear forces and our leadership started getting hit by nukes.

And guess what? The Russians have now developed even newer submarines that are even quieter and stealthier than the subs that the U.S. Navy referred to as "black holes."


  • "The stealth capabilities of Russia's new Lada-class diesel-electric submarines far exceed those of their predecessors, Admiraty Shipyard's CEO Alexander Buzakov told the Russian press.

    "According to Buzakov, the new vessels are even stealthier than Russian Kilo-class submarines, thought to be one of the quietest diesel-electric submarine classes in the world and dubbed "black holes" for their ability to "disappear" from sonars.

    "The new submarines are able to maintain such a low profile thanks to a clever implementation of a next-generation anti-reflective acoustic coating and a new improved hydro-acoustic system, Buzakov said.


In a surprise attack scenario, the U.S. may be able to get some missiles off at the Russians, but the Russians also have the most advanced anti-ballistic missile systems in the entire world. In fact, it is believed that the S-500 system will be able to intercept any of our missiles before they even get to Russia. The following info about the S-500 comes from military-today.com.


  • The S-500 is not an upgrade of the S-400, but a new design. It uses a lot of new technology and is superior to the S-400. It was designed to intercept ballistic missiles. It is planned to have a range of 500-600 km and hit targets at altitudes as high as 40 km. Some sources claim that this system is capable of tracking 5-20 ballistic targets and intercepting up to 5-10 ballistic targets simultaneously. It can defeat ballistic missiles traveling at 5-7 kilometers per second. It has been reported that this air defense system can also target low orbital satellites. It is planned that the S-500 will shield Moscow and the regions around it. It will replace the current A-135 anti-ballistic missile system. The S-500 missiles will be used only against the most important targets, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, AWACS and jamming aircraft.


And you may have heard that the Russians have been deploying S-300 and S-400 missile systems to Syria. After hearing reports that the Obama administration may conduct direct strikes against Syrian military positions, the Russians responded by reminding the U.S. that the S-300 and S-400 systems will be used against any targets that attack areas controlled by the Syrian government. The following comes from RT:


  • Russia's Defense Ministry has cautioned the US-led coalition of carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions, adding in Syria there are numerous S-300 and S-400 air defense systems up and running.

    Russia currently has S-400 and S-300 air-defense systems deployed to protect its troops stationed at the Tartus naval supply base and the Khmeimim airbase. The radius of the weapons reach may be "a surprise" to all unidentified flying objects, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson General Igor Konashenkov said.

    According to the Russian Defense Ministry, any airstrike or missile hitting targets in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger.


And the official Russian embassy account on Twitter has issued an ominous warning as well.




  • All jokes aside, #Russia will take every defensive measure necessary to protect its personnel stationed in #Syria from terrorist threat.


So what would happen if U.S. military aircraft started getting shot down by the Russians in Syria?

I don't know the answer to that question, and let's hope we don't find out.

Another thing that has raised a lot of eyebrows is a massive "civil defense drill" in Russia that just concluded that involved 40 million people. Many believe that the primary purpose of this drill was to prepare the population for a nuclear war. The following comes from a major British news source:


  • The huge four-day "civil defence" drill has set alarm bells ringing in Washington and London, with tensions already high over disagreements in Syria.

    Following a breakdown in communication between the USA and Russia, the Kremlin has now organised the huge emergency practice drill – either as a show of force or something more sinister.

    The drill will prepare Russian citizens for "large natural and man-made disasters", according to the country's Ministery for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disaster.

    The ministry revealed 40 million civilians, 200,000 emergency rescuers and 50,000 units of equipment are involved in the war game, which is running from October 4 to October 7.


Most Americans don't realize this, but there are hundreds and hundreds of nuclear bomb shelters in Moscow alone. If a nuclear war were to start, Russian citizens are going to have somewhere to go.

Meanwhile, here in the United States no provision has been made for the general population. When the missiles start falling, the only thing that will be left for us to do will be to kiss ourselves goodbye.

It seems like our relationship with Russia gets worse with each passing week. This week, the Obama administration officially accused the Russians of hacking into the DNC and interfering in our elections.


  • After months of speculation whether the US would officially accuse Russia of being responsible for various intrusions and hacks, primarily involving the Democratic party, moments ago we finally got the long-anticipated confirmation when the US named Russia as the actor behind the hacking attempts on political organizations and, more importantly, state election systems and accused Putin of carrying out a wide-ranging campaign to interfere with the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political officials.

    In a statement, the US "intelligence community" said that it is "confident" that the Russian government "directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organisations", the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a joint statement.

    The US added that "these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process".


Over in Russia, they are very upset with us as well.

The Russians believe that the U.S. was responsible for the overthrow of the democratically-elected government in Ukraine, they believe that the U.S. helped start the civil war in Syria while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State (and this is true), and they believe that the U.S. pushed the price of oil way down in order to hurt the Russian economy.

And it isn't just the Russian leadership that is very angry with the United States. According to Gallup, American leadership has a 1 percent approval rating in Russia at this point.

If you listen to Russian media, there is constant talk of war. The Russians consider the U.S. to be the great force for evil in the world, and they consider themselves to be the great force for good in the world. And there seems to be this overwhelming belief that an ultimate confrontation between good and evil is inevitable. Just consider the following excerpt from an article written by leading Russian thinker Alexander Dugin titled "Third World War Has Never Been So Close."


  • The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what's more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters' very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it's too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

    Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO's ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists' game has been revealed. Soon enough, they'll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

    But what about us? We don't need war. Not now, [not] tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn't have such an enormous country free from foreign control.


Sadly, most ordinary Americans aren't paying attention to any of this.

Most ordinary Americans still think that the Russians are "our friends" and that there is not even the slightest possibility that we could go to war with them.

Let us certainly hope that war with Russia does not happen anytime soon, because there is a very good chance that we would not wind up on the winning side.



Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Yes. I've been following this for a while.

Syria is a proxy war between Russia and the United States. Australian aircraft recently bombed some Assad soldiers. Whoops.

There is a special forces regiment and the base of the Australian submarine squadron near my house so I guess my garden will wilt when the city is nuked.

Here is a massive oversimplification of cause and effect:

a. Russia annexes Abhkazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. No one does anything about it. Lesson learned. 2008. Crude oil at all-time high, $145 a barrel, July 2008.
b. Oil prices go down because of shale oil.
c. Russians become unhappy as the price of everything goes up as oil was propping up economy.
d. Putin says it is a Western conspiracy. Russians increasing buzzing Western allies: 2011.
e. Russia distracts citizens and keeps military happy with an invasion of Ukraine. NATO fails to challenge it militarily. Lesson learned. 2014.
f. December 2014 - Ukraine enters into cooperation agreement with NATO.
g. Oil prices continue to spiral. By June 2014 down to $115 a barrel. But by Feb 2015, down to $35 a barrel. Sanctions over Ukraine bite - Russian companies lose access to Western credit, unable to refinance debt.
h. Russia distracts citizens and keeps military happy with support of Syria. Refuses to engage in airspace protocol with Western combat aircraft. October 2015.
i. Russia says its pulling out. Mission accomplished!... oh but not really.
j. Turkey shoots down Russian jet. Russians very unhappy. Install heavy duty SAMs and Krashuka-4 platform (advanced jammer). November 2015.
k. US special forces numbers dramatically increase in Syria. April 2016.
k. Russian hackers are accused of interfering in US elections. More individuals subject to assets frozen, travel bans, Gazprom subsidiaries targeted. These sanctions really bit hard. September 2016.
l. Crude oil currently at $50 a barrel. Still very poor price - OPEC two weeks ago agreed to slow production in order to lift prices. Russia starts talking about direct war with the West in the media. Russian military drills on Ukrainian border. US policymakers distracted by election and US lawmakers in bipartisan deadlock. October 2016.

Bear in mind Putin is worth an estimated $200 billion. Sanctions really bite him personally in the arse.

Anyway, its all looking a bit grim.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


I think for the Russians it's all sabre-rattling (as you detailed above in previous examples), as they have been doing on a regular basis, in a bid to rally nationalism to quell internal dissent.

But...

There is always the danger that, against their intentions, events could spiral out of their control and lead to a hot war.

After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, the nations of Europe thought of it as a trivial affair that would be worked out diplomatically. But to their astonishment, it instead led to World War I.
I was very concerned about the war following the breakup of Yogoslavia, between Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia in the early 1990's, that similar to the cause of WW I, threatened to expand into a wider regional war, or even (as NATO and the Russians were pulled in) a global war.

Against the visible "reasons" for war, it seems to just happen when one side wants a war badly enough, and the logic of exactly why it occurred is improvised by historians after the fact.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Yeah. Did you catch the "Normandy" discussions yesterday? Putin, Merkel, Hollande, and the president of the Ukraine. Merkel was telling reporters even before the meeting that it didn't look promising.

If the Baltic states were not members of NATO I'd say they'd be deeply unhappy by recent events. Turkey as a member of NATO dodged Russian wrath when that shot down that Sukhoi fighter.

WW1 was a bit different as there was an expectation of a war by everyone, and it was even welcomed by all parties as a way of venting nationalistic pride. Incidentally, the Kaiser's war effort was a European common customs treaty which would have excluded the UK (hello EU). In this instance however we have no real war objective from either the West or Putin, other than Putin's desire to claim territory inhabited by Russian speakers. Practically speaking, I'm guessing there isn't much left that he hasn't already grabbed so that might be the end of it in so far as invasions go.

If I had to pick a Russian frontier which would bring about a war, I'd choose Iran and their long-standing Caspian Sea dispute. Iran has few friends, is a fair-weather ally of Russia in respect of the airbase, and the US would barely mutter a word about a Russian maritime claim over the sea.

Edit: I see also that the Caspian Sea contains oil reserves. Aha.







Last edited by First Amongst Daves; 2016-10-20 7:49 AM.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
Yeah. Did you catch the "Normandy" discussions yesterday? Putin, Merkel, Hollande, and the president of the Ukraine. Merkel was telling reporters even before the meeting that it didn't look promising.


No. I hadn't heard a thing until you mentioned it. Googling it...

http://www.dw.com/en/little-optimism-after-normandy-format-meeting/a-36106924

...I only found Russian and European media reporting it, and not even the final result.

 Quote:
If the Baltic states were not members of NATO I'd say they'd be deeply unhappy by recent events. Turkey as a member of NATO dodged Russian wrath when that shot down that Sukhoi fighter.


I still think that Russia, for all its destructive power, will lose any territory they seize, over the long term. They are militarily strong, but (even more so than the U.S.) are a diminishing power, with a shrinking population and declining economic resources.

 Quote:
WW1 was a bit different as there was an expectation of a war by everyone, and it was even welcomed by all parties as a way of venting nationalistic pride. Incidentally, the Kaiser's war effort was a European common customs treaty which would have excluded the UK (hello EU). In this instance however we have no real war objective from either the West or Putin, other than Putin's desire to claim territory inhabited by Russian speakers. Practically speaking, I'm guessing there isn't much left that he hasn't already grabbed so that might be the end of it in so far as invasions go.


I read a long time ago that most Europeans (at the man-on-the-street level) thought the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo was a minor diplomatic incident that would blow over in a few weeks, and were horrified when it blew up into war. Even at the highest levels of power, while they had new inventions like tanks and guns and mustard gas, and were eager to try them out, it was only when Russia's Tsar Nicholas II mobilized his infantry that Germany declared war on Russia. Austria-Hungary had made 10 demands of Serbia to avoid war, and Serbia honored 9 and 1/2 of the 10 demands! It was known to the Germans that Russia and France had a mutual defense pact, but it was unknown to the Germans that Britain was secretly also part of that Russia-France alliance. If the Germans had known, the Germans would not have declared war, and would have told the Austrians to further negotiate, knowing that they could not win with Britain as part of the alliance.

 Quote:
If I had to pick a Russian frontier which would bring about a war, I'd choose Iran and their long-standing Caspian Sea dispute. Iran has few friends, is a fair-weather ally of Russia in respect of the airbase, and the US would barely mutter a word about a Russian maritime claim over the sea.

Edit: I see also that the Caspian Sea contains oil reserves. Aha.


I see things coming to a head with Iran's nuclear program reaching fruition. That war would start when Israel (either with or without the U.S.) bombs facilities in Iran to prevent their nuclear capability. And since Iran has thousands of Russian engineers assisting and working in Iran's facilities, such an attack could kill thousands of Russians. This would be the equivalent of a 9-11 on Russia, that would obligate them to join an Iranian/muslim coalition to strike back at Israel.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


"U.S. Media Hides WW 3 Crisis From Public"


While I hardly hold up the Alex Jones channel as gospel truth, I find it hard to dispute much of what they cite. If the threat of nuclear war with Russia is overblown, why does the U.S. media (either the mainstream 80% liberal media, or the smaller opposing Fox News and conservative media) not either de-bunk or ridicule the possibility? A nuclear war exercise in Russia that involves one fifth of the Russian population certainly warrants some serious media attention.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



Jill Stein, one of the four presidential candidates, says that if Hillary becomes president, we are definitely headed for war with Russia, potentially nuclear.

Why is this not reported?

Perhaps a bit more directly influential on our lives than "you just grab them by the pussy".




Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Clinton's confrontational approach to Russia is widely reported. Its often reported in comparison to Trump's plan on cosying-up.

It is odd that a Democrat would take a harder line on Russia than a Republican. Seems positively Reagan-esque.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
"Reaganesque" policy is to build a strong military, and yet not unnecessarily use it.
Despite a massive rebuilding of U.S. forces in the Reagan years, there were only three military incidents that occurred during Reagan's presidency
(1) Dislodging of a small insurrection on the Island of Grenada in 1982.
(2) The blowing up of a marine barracks of U.S. soldiers stationed in Beirut. Despite the provocation for war, Reagan saw there was no pragmatic reason to have U.S. soldiers there, and quietly removed them, rather than continue an endless back-and-forth of U.S. and Arab reprisals.
(3) After bombing of a nightclub in Italy, traced back to Quaddafi in Libya, a one-time bombing of Libya, to deter further sponsorship of terrorist bombings by Libya.

That's it.

In contrast, Hillary and Obama have weakened U.S. conventional and nuclear forces to their weakest level since before World War II, and they potentially provoke a war our military is not ready for. Further, as I answer in above posts to the topic Pariah raised, Russia has fully modernized their nuclear missiles and submarines so they are far more prepared for a war that Hillary/Obama are trying to provoke!
Hillary is a Council On Foreign Relations globalist/interventionist who would start a war just to prove she can be tough, or provoke war to distract and rally the population away from interest in her scandals and criminal actions.

What Hillary Clinton is doing with her rhetoric toward Russia is not "Reaganesque". It's self-destructive. It's suicide. It's inviting our enemies to come and conquer us, after they have already weakened our military from the inside.
It's Saul Alinsky-esque, joining the capitalist system, infiltrating it for decades, moving to the higher levels of power, and destroying the system from within to implement leftist/Cultural Marxist change.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

"Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk

"Terrifying Future Of The United States"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI


Ayers' vision of the U.S. occupied jointly by foreign powers, with camps to "re-educate" or "liquidate" dissenters to oppressive socialism, has been given a preparatory structure under Barack Obama. These are not people who have the best interest of the Unites States, its people, or its rule of law.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Hal Lindsey, Nov 4 2016 broadcast:



Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5