Posted on 05/18/2013 7:52:52 AM PDT by IbJensen
At least Putin can be counted on to look after the best interests of Russia.
When the nation lurchingly slouches into true communism, just think how adventurous that will be!
Being careful not to say anything against the fearless leader and his fearless politburo. Being watchful against incursions by Amerika’s version of the KGB and the NKVD. Looking over our shoulders and being helpless against attacks by roving gangs of evildoers who are in the image of the fearless leader.
Never criticizing homosexual behavior or the lynching and raping of honkys by the exalted Muslims and our new Sharia Law.
We can joke and laugh about what’s happening in this nation now and humorously speculating about our future, but it’s just whistling as we walk past the cemetery.
The communist killer never had a workable atomic bomb until long after Potsdam.
Good points...unfortunately both FDR and Truman had man-crushes on Stalin.
Patton could have taken Moscow in months. Soviet troops already knew their fellow soldiers who were German POWs were being executed by Stalin when they returned to the USSR....so the resistance would have been light. Heck FDR aided Stalin with the executions by making the US turn over Soviet POWs to the USSR
The reports of the end of the cold war have been greatly exaggerated. Everytime Russia is down on her knees the USA picks her up and sends foreign aid her way.
The wall came down, Russian Tanks rolled through the streets, but did not fire on Yeltsin or the demonstrators when he demanded that Gorby be released, many signs that communism was on the ropes in Russia.
However, what did the west think-all those communists just converted overnight, and there was no more risk? Apparently, the jounalists thought so. They went around talking about the peace dividend, the end of the cold war, and acted like there would never be a conflict to report on again because all was peace and light in the world.
Meanwhile, the world was a much more dangerous place, because the economic disintegration of Russia lead to an uncertainty over control of nukes, the KGB changed its name and pretended not to exist, and the thugs became richer than ever as they lined their pockets with aid from the USA(borrowed from China and other countries).
So while the cold war may have subsided a bit, I never thought it was over, just that some major battles had been won. The death blow was never delivered. JMHO
Au contraire, mon ami.
(A little French lingo there to show my deep affection for little froggies.)
American forces were not spent and there were battalions of troops in reserve. Russia was never an ally except, perhaps, in the rheumy eyes of the diseased Roosevelt who thought Uncle Joe an excellent and jovial good chap.
Walter Reuther, that good communist labor leader, journeyed to Europe several times to encourage the troops to press their leaders both in the field and in Congress to send them speedily to CONUS. Walter didn’t want his Soviet masters to have to suffer an ignominious defeat at the hands of the suckers who pumped bucks and munitions into their murderous hands.
The Russian soldiers had had enough of Stalin as the tales as to what had happened to their comrades who were captured by the Germans reached their ears. They were executed upon their return as Stalin realized that they might find their captors much nicer than their evil government.
So. I stand atop a pile of books written on the subject when I say to you, and others, that the US would have beat the hell out of the demoralized Russkies.
I agree with you.
Putin didn't come to power in a free country - then work at destroying those freedoms. Putin didn't squander Russia's wealth - he did his best to build wealth for the Russian people. Thuggy systems were already in place in Russia - he didn't work to add more...
And, as you say reg45, Putin loves his country. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for our 'elite' democrats.
I should have elaborated— I mean Stalin would have had to think about Moscow as the next Hiroshima.
How come the Swedish airforce didn’t respond to this? I remember a year ago you saying how Sweden, by itself without any assistance from NATO, could defeat Russia. I am surprised Moscow is not suing for surrender following a major strike by Stockholm. After all, even with Russia’s nuclear weapons you were quite adamant that Sweden could swat the Ruskies off like old flies. What happened here?
We simulated shooting their bombers down with a few Raptors.
LLS
Putin may be a thug, but he is no longer a communist.
Remember, right after Obama was elected the first time, Putin wrote a letter, published in Pravda, warning the USA "NOT to go down the road to communism, because that is what had destroyed Russia"?
Maybe Putin is rattling his swords because he is now afraid of the spread of communism back to Russia from the USA.
Funny how things turn about. I would now welcome invading Russians as an army of liberation, and would be serving them up all the Vodka I have. A couple of decades ago, I'd have been fighting them.
They always have and so have we, so what’s the big deal?
In my ranking of potential threats to the US I would have:
Number 1: Internal schisms and weakness at number one. The American economy is not as strong and resilient as it has been, and additionally it is being propped up by a structure that is simply not sustainable. There are several fracture points that can cause financial and/or social instability, and that is a big problem. Furthermore, the country is more divided from a political perspective than it has ever been before, to the extent that if a Republican (or Democrat) came up with a golden solution you can be 100% sure that Democrats (or Republicans) would say no to it.
Number 2: The potential of radicalized Pakistan. Simply put, if a nuclear weapon ever goes off in the US you can bet your marbles there will be some connection to Pakistan. Either via direct action (low probability), nuclear material and know-how (high probability, considering that Pakistanis like Dr. A.Q.Khan are responsible for the highest level of nuclear proliferation in the world), or ISI logistics and assistance (medium probability).
Number 3: Radicalized Islam. There will always be a constant threat, one that requires constant vigilance, because the moment the defenders rest the terrorists will strike. Considering the greater ease of a small group effecting a devastating physical strike (be it incendiary, economic, biological) it is far easier than at any other time in history for a small but dedicated group to inflict huge damage. Whether we are talking about terrorist attacks similar to the ones the Chechens have done in Russia (e.g. the Moscow theater attack and/or Beslan school attack), or biological agent attack ...it is far easier to do them now.
Number 4: A strong China. Whether or not the Chinese economy is built on cards as some say, the fact is that it has enabled the rise of a strong and effective military that is 100% oriented towards fending off the US. Already, the ENTIRE South China Sea is a no-go zone for ANY American asset apart from the Virginia and Seawolf class submarines. According to a RAND study even the F-22 is not survivable. In fifteen years the situation will just get worse.
Number 5: A strong Russia. A far less threat than China, but still apt to be a thorn in the side. Logic would dictate that the Russians and Americans would realize they have more in common, particularly considering the rise of the radical Islam AND the rise of China, and that the two countries would get closer ...but logic is insufficient considering how key people in both countries would never agree to a close relationship (damn the torpedoes). Thus, resources that could be spent towards addressing the terrorism/Chinese situations are spent on each other. Not a problem if it was 1981, but in 2013 going forward things are a little different.
Anyways, that's the lay of the land based on where I am sitting.
Lots of things would be different if people had done differently in the past...
At the end of WW2 the Soviets had run out of men. They were conscripting boys.
That's not what I read. The total population of USSR around 1940 is reported as 191.7 million. All the territories have been reclaimed by 1945, so we don't need to reduce the count for that. Total losses in the war were about 20 million. So USSR had about 170 million to draw upon. If we presume the age bounds between 20 and 50, and count only men (though many women were volunteering,) we end up with about 40 million men who could be sent to the front. It's plenty.
As I read, children were working at the factories, making ammo and weapons, and at collective farms. That would be logical. What's the point of sending a boy to the front line if he can't even lift his rifle?
Perhaps you mean the "Hitler Youth" movement. Hitler indeed trained children to be fighters, and they did fight in the ruins of Berlin - they fought to the best of their abilities, but it wasn't much.
After May of 1945 USSR had enough soldiers to keep in occupied Europe, and enough soldiers to be sent to the Far East to fight Japan in China. As you know, both of those goals were successfully achieved. In 1945 the Soviet Army was strong, experienced, and the country was on war footing, with weapons and ammo and supplies coming from factories in Siberia. Fighting *that* from across the ocean would have been suicide. Hitler failed to do so just four years earlier, even though he was prepared, and his army was at that time the best in the world, and the Red Army was not prepared at all, torn apart by internal strife.
Does the US support 50% or more of China’s export figures? What would happen if we had a shooting war with China. How long would the Wall Street bankers allow it to go on?
It would basically, in my opinion, be the economic version of mutually assured destruction. MAD doctrine never meant that both countries would be equally destroyed, however it meant that both countries would be sufficiently destroyed to make any such action highly imprudent. For instance, had the USA and the USSR gone hot during the Cold War, it doesn't mean 100% of Americans and Soviets would have died ...just that the damage would have been so prodigious that no American or Soviet would have opted for nuclear war without serious thought.
Same thing with the economic MAD between the USA and China. Any 'winner' will also be a loser. To be honest if the Russians were to be really nasty what they would do is send their newest SSN to launch a Chinese-made ASM against an American carrier, and then another SSN to sink one of the new Chinese AEGIS-esque destroyers. Russia would benefit a lot from an American-Chinese 'problem' (in the same way China would from an American-Russian problem, and America would from a Russian-Chinese problem).
I agree in general with your assessment .
However I believe that a tribal-centered ,radicalized Pakinstan will lead to nuclear chaos , and unbalance the Near East and Asia is the greatest threat.
Secondarily , radicalized Islam is already an armed threat internationally , and currently they can be found within our own currrent government administration . They already have an ear to the leaders in this country .
I used to think that the USA could overcome any division , or schism , and that we could unite against any foreign power or influence , but the attack on 9/11/01 changed all that thinking . That attack led to our own Federalized Police State called DHS, and a pogram* of stop and frisk without probable cause , and a debasement of civil and Constitutional rights .
In general , I agree with your analysis as to the top 5 threats to this country, although not necessarily in the order that you presented.
Good job !
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.