Posted on 10/03/2003 1:47:09 AM PDT by Truth666
Ah, yes, in the world of belmont_mikhail_suslov, one must prove their innocence of treason--where treason is defined as "deviating from belmont_mikhail_suslov's official approved line."
I've already expressed my opinions on the challenges the US faces here. You may disagree with my assessment; however, I fail to see how disagreement with your opinion is, as you attempt to say, proof that I am not a loyal American.
You leveled the charge, good sir. Provide solid proof--not of mere disagreement with you and your stance, but of my ACTUALLY being on the side of a foreign power against the United States--which, BTW, is the Constitutional definition of treason.
Provide the proof that I am a traitor.
Put up.
Or shut up.
You name some names before I address your concern further ^ ) Russia is back .. via the BBC . John . I'ts not my habit to nitpick an atom the sub particles but it is Mother Russia . She is hungry . She is angry , etc .
Uh, no. You didn't "simply" ask that question.
And you still have yet to supply any evidence to support asking any such "simple" question.
You are merely a despicable piece of filth, without any conception of "honor." I spent eight years in the Marine Corps defending this nation and all it stands for--which, the last time I checked, didn't include being subject to anonymous innuendo regarding my loyalty, fidelity, and patriotism as the price of disagreeing with an ignorant fool.
Naturally, it is possible that your reflexive downplaying of the PRC, Russia and other large hostile nation states is simply a difference of opinion.
Oh, wow. You're saying it's POSSIBLE that I'm a loyal American. So (expletive deleted) generous of you.
I don't recall seeing your (Biblical Beast of Burden) when I was standing on the ramparts of freedom.
If that is the case, then so be it, we agree to disagree.
You're still worthless.
Your methods are classically Gramscian: no tactic is too vile, no slander too vicious, the only thing that counts is to make the charge, and then scurry off into the gloom when challenged.
It is also possible that you want to present yourself as simply a fellow patriot who disagrees with me, but in reality you have an explicit goal to downplay certain things and thereby exert some form of influence over our military strategy and defense outlays.
If you really think that Free Republic has any influence over military strategy and defense outlays, then you're either (a) overcome with delusions of adequacy, or (b) a clueless commie from Beijing seeking to exert "some form of influence over our military strategy and defense outlays" on the cheap. Newsflash: it won't work.
I suppose in a semi anonymous forum true proof is never possible.
You made the allegation. You were offered every opportunity to provide proof. You failed to do so. You merely ran away at high velocity when confronted.
I do plan to do a statistical analysis, at some point, regarding your opinions on matters of the threats posed by hostile great powers.
Find me a "hostile great power" first. There's America--and the distant also-rans.
No time to do it this week, but I'll eventually get to it and post it on this forum.
That's nice.
I will do a statistical analysis on how many times you run away whenever directly challenged, just like a cockroach does when somebody flips on the lights. It's a frequent habit of yours.
When someone says, without supplying any backup, that something is "true and impossible to dispute," he's begging the question, not engaging in logical argument.
To disagree (in this case) is to discard the truth, is it not?
No, mostly because you haven't established that it IS the truth.
If we are truly all patriots, would it not be prudent to place strong pressure on our enemies if they are openly placing a deadly ultimatum on us?
Show me someone who's
In the 1960s and 1970s, when every analysis said that NATO would not be able to withstand a conventional assault from the Warsaw Pact, we threatened first use. Now, Russia is doing likewise.
They are worried--just as we were.
Uh-huh. Words on a piece of paper. Just like the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
Geopolitics 101: Neighboring countries are enemies.
China has irredentist claims on Siberia.
Russia will probably regret that treaty, unless China collapses sooner than later.
In the same summit that is the topic of this thread putin said Russia had "at her disposal a considerable... stockpile of heavy ground-launched strategic missiles...".
As does the United States.
"Their combat characteristics, including the surmounting of any systems of anti-missile defences, are unrivalled," he said.
THAT part is pure BS, because NOBODY has conducted a live-fire test of a nuclear missile since 1962--and nobody has EVER fired one under combat conditions (i.e., without a lot of factory technicians doing a lot of prelaunch maintenance to make sure that everything will work).
You may not understand this...but the folks in charge do, and they understand that ICBMs are far less useful as combat weapons than one would think.
Now... who, besides Russia herself, has (or will have) a ballistic missile defense?
The United States--but that one's not going to be any sort of system that can handle a full-fledged strike by the likely opposition. Neither, BTW, is Russia's (which only protects Moscow).
Putin is pointing out that Russia can destroy the US. We can more than destroy Russia.
I had assumed you already had the facts regarding the nature of Russia, China, and their satellite allies (including Iraq, DPRK, Iran, Syria, and others) each having been (or previously) openly hostile to the United States.
Iraq is no longer an ally of Russia. Iran is not anyone's ally (indeed, they are openly aiding Islamists operating in Chechnya and Western China, to the extreme discomfort of Russia and China). The DPRK is not your father's DPRK--any war on the Korean peninsula will turn into a question of "Gosh, should we let the ROKs go all the way to the Yalu or not?"
One can't dispute that if they are informed.
Good, then quit disputing, as you obviously AREN'T informed.
In the 1960s and 1970s NATO used a policy of "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" if I recall correctly-- not preemption.
Against a massive Soviet invasion, "Flexible Response" was really a promise to use tactical nuclear weapons early and often.
No, there haven't. Read Arthur Hadley's The Straw Giant for a detailed description of what happens during an ICBM test launch. It's not a live-fire exercise by any means.
When you say live fire, you must mean a live warhead launched thousands of miles. Well, as everyone would surely know, systems are tested in pieces.
When I say live-fire, I mean LIVE FIRE.
If all you do is fire concrete blivets from an artillery piece, and you never fire an actual shell with real explosives...how do you know the damn thing will work as advertised?
Witness the US Navy's torpedoes of early World War II for an example of this issue.
There have been hundreds of non-nuclear ICBM tests over the last decade.
In other words, no live firings, with a live warhead in the nose, on an operational trajectory, and the missile has been "groomed" (which means that it's gotten a lot of maintenance and repair work that a combat missile would NOT get).
These tests are meant to determine ways in which to deter enemy radar and to trick infrared systems into mistaking dummy warheads for real ones.
They're engineering tests; they aren't combat readiness tests by any stretch of the imagination.
The missiles are given extensive refit and repair work prior to the test. In the field, missiles do not get this level of maintenance, so their reliability will be MUCH lower.
And in these tests, US missiles fail about 1 time in 5. Russian missiles fail 1 time in four.
Think about it. Missiles that have been checked out and repaired far more than their operational counterparts are will fail 20-25% of the time.
But if you read the open strategic planning literature, missile reliability is ASSUMED to be 90-95% under operational conditions.
What interests me is why nobody notices this disconnect between reality and theory.
These tests are ongoing in Russia who have developed the most advanced systems in the world and are deploying them as we speak.
It still says nothing about their combat performance.
As for nuclear testing-- the U.S. conducted its last test in September of 1993 and Russia's last was in October 1990.
Blowing up a "device" underground is NOT the same as detonating a nuclear warhead zipping along at 15,000 MPH.
Your assertion that "folks in charge" consider nuclear weapons as "less useful in combat" is actually quite funny. Nuclear weapons are considered strategic weapons and Russian military doctrine considers them VERY useful as a little research would point out.
Declarative doctrine and what gets practiced in reality are two very different things, as one can readily observe.
If ICBMs were actually used as doctrine demands they be used, then the USSR launched a massive nuclear strike on the US in 1979.
In case this escaped you...they didn't.
Something is restraining the Russians from employing their nuclear arsenal. Most likely, the fact that all those ICBMs would not work as advertised.
Okay.. you stated an opinion about NMD. You stated in such a way as to indicate you are informed about it.
I've studied up in the issue since Reagan's speech of March 23rd, 1983.
... exactly how and why is it inadequate? You must have some understanding about the science of KKV technology to draw an opinion.
Simple numbers: 1,000 or so warheads against 200 midcourse interceptors.
Even if the interceptors have a 100% hit rate, that leaves 800 warheads inbound.
Any ideas about the specific plans for deploying the system world wide? How does the system deal with dummy warheads?
The best means of dealing with dummy warheads is to either use some means of boost-phase interception (kill the archer, not the arrows) or use terminal defenses (the atmosphere does a fine job of screening lightweight decoys out--and full-weight decoys means that you lose a significant fraction of missile payload.
First time for everything. The usual pattern is that when I smack you down, you hide out for a couple days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.