« Previous ·
Home
· Next »
Filed under: Russia
I can't count the number of times I've been told by certain people that Vladimir Putin isn't stupid/evil enough to embark upon a new arms race with the U.S. That, in other words, he's no Stalin. Instead, they always said, he's going to limit his power play to the use of Russia's energy resources, knowing that a second arms race would end even more badly for Russia than the first one. It would certainly be impossible, such people always argued, for Putin to release news of such actions on 9/11, a date of particular sensitivity to Americans. This would obviously provoke them to new heights of creativity and ferocity, especially when they remembered the technology, weapons, cash and diplomatic cover that Russia has delivered to arch American foes like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Venezulea. I can't count the number of times I've sounded the warning call that these statements were pure, crazed propaganda and waiting for them to be proved wrong would be dangerous, calling for immediate action to preempt Russia's march towards oblivion -- not only for our sake, but the the sake of the Russian people as well.
Now, to such people there is only one reply: Read this.
Talk about the shot heard round the world! Hopefully, even the deafest simpletons on Capitol Hill heard this one.
Social Bookmarking:
 del.icio.us |  digg |  technorati |  stumble upon |  furl |  reddit
Comments
Artfldgr says:
So they have a new nuclear bomb, new subs, new torpedo, and new field ordinance, its like christmas for weapons people...
They have murdered 300 journalists in 10 years
Supplied many terrorists with more explosives than they can use in 100 years
War games with china in the urals (http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20070921505406000.htm)
Exporting new AK101, dragunov sniper, grenade launches in South America and building a new factory
(http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2641282720070826 / http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2007/08/15/defense_focus_venezuelas_kalashnikovs/1273/)
Renewal of “bear in the air” strategic bombing runs to the US and other countries (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/08/18/russia_renews_long_range_bomber_flights/)
just bought yellow cake, which can be mixed with other sources to make false flag untraceable / note that Russia has some of the largest reserves of uranium. (see program: http://www.llnl.gov/str/JanFeb07/Smith.html which intends to keep isotopic fingerprints to identify sources)
don’t forget Nashi... ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/russias-new-revolution/2007/09/09/1189276541557.html)
The massive upgrades to yamentau mountain and other locations - (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/yamantau.htm)
Russian skinheads (in isreal too)... (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=902346&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
and next time you eat tuna you can wonder whats in it.
you might thank the russians for dumping nuclear waste into the sea. (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1502.html)
note all the defectors giving warnings and predictions (going back 40 years), the facts from open archives, CPUSA archives at NYU, Venona transcripts, and the smuggled mitroken archives
not to mention comments from golitsyn, stanislav lunev, and others…
and russian spying is above levels seen in the distant past (thats also recent given that the UK is no longer tolerating and ignoring it like the US - http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=171515&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20)
everything above is in regular international news... no secret papers, no backroom plans... its all out in the open, easy to check, and no off the record statements from unconfirmed parties.
in fact, its all from just plain old news. (and unrestricted warfare is another interesting twist to the whole thing... that you can download from several sources. read it and you will instantly see that their grasp of histories is very broad and very detailed).
Of course nothing says anything definite…
A person who likes guns can have more than they could ever shoot, and it doesn’t mean that they will use it. A paranoid can stockpile things to feel 'safe', and never use them.
Though I will be confident that any gun owner with 100 rifles will certainly have a better historical record than russia has had with its weapons and intrigues)
Read what you want into it… nothing is ever certain… motives and intent is something that one cant tease out from facts that way.
my leftist friends say that i am warmongering because i pay attention.
i am so glad they are peace loving international state friends... right?
i am not going to go out on a limb and say they want 3G war, but i will say that they are fighting a 5G war that uses 4G proxies.
however, its interesting to note the addition to the point that not only is this bomb bigger, badder, and such (traditional arms race actions! rather than build for specific field use, its built to compete on oarbitrary points of the joneses), but its also good for the greenies too!!! see quote in article that points out the environmental pluses
its pretty twisted to make a convincing propaganda point hinge on environmentalism, while the purpose of the device is to destroy large masses of living things in an area (not just people)
to russian: the US didnt make the Mother bomb to race arbitrarily with russia, it made the bomb so that it could be effective in adapting to underground tunnels, caves, and storage bunkers. the whole rhetoric around russia is as if they have a form of proxy penis envy with missiles.
to marc: while i do think that russia has a large hand in terrorism in the world, and thats covered by many sources and archives, i dont think that THEY picked the date. that they are not in THAT much control. if you knew your history at all, you would know that date as the date the caliphate last tried to take the west at the seige of vienna in 1683 (it wasnt the first either).
to laRussoPhobe, russia CAN wage war against the US, it has done so since wwii. under the new treatise thats floating around "unrestricted warfar" asymetric war is the norm, and one can no longer use economics and size to determine whether the attacker can overcome the enemy.
its a different form of things, and it comes CHEAP... in fact MUCH cheaper than the fancy systems that the US favors and will ultimately be hobbled for.
after all, it only takes a few microwats of energy to trigger a pile of explosives that were free to take out a multimillion dollar machine and the mulitmillion dollar trained people inside it.
if russia can do something and something like islam gets the blame, then they can hurt america their avowed enemy and never get into a 3G type conflict which is what your statement leans towards.
even a slave can poison a lord, determining win by strict calculation of force does not work, and such math made a hell and big problem in vietnam, and does so in iraq too.
Russia has a lot of advantages in such a conflict. one of its biggest is the disbelief that such a small entity would attack or harm a large entity. but ask any big guy about who gives him the most trouble, other big guys or other small guys.
in the past 40 years has the biggest problems been from large scale movements, or have the biggest problem been deseased fleas?
there are several tactics at play here. both can be explained by stories from africa. the tale of the elephant and the flea, and the tale of the aligator and zebra.
if the iraqies really wanted us out, all they have to do is stop attacking. if three months went by without any deaths, withtout anything, we would pack up and run so fast. and after we left if they started, we would be loath to go back. so tactically they dont want us gone.
why?
because they are using an aligator vs zebra tactic. the zebra is fast, strong, can move on land, it can kill an aligator given the chance. but the aligator hides. its sneaks up. and its greatest strength is that it can hold its breath and hold on.
and thats what they are doing. holding their breath and hanging on to the US and letting the US either suffocate or bleed money. however you want to abstract it is fine. they hang on, the US bleeds... eventually it will not be able to function. this is 4G, cheap, effective, and is highly effective against free states who cant act brutally enough to suppress it and eliminate it, and cant focus that tightly enough not to help out the enemy while they try doing something.
the elephant tactic is a terrorst tactic in general, and its what got us into the war. the idea is that a flea bites an elephants ears and anoys it till it goes mad. the flea cant normally take out an elephant, as you express in your paragraph, but a flea can drive an animal mad because its too small for the animal to deal with effectively.
so the elephant goes crazy and starts runing around, eventually trampling a village. the village then joins the fight to eradicate the crazed elephant. the elephant thinks its acting in the only way it can, and so are the villagers. however, they eventually will kill the elephant or will weaken it trying, and so the flea takes down the elephant.
war is not that clear cut.. and 5G war in which EVERY harm is a considered attack protected by the ambiguity of it, and the lack of declarations. was lead in bibs an attack on future adults by putting lead and causing developmental problems... or was it an honest accident that was a combination of things that came together and are unfortunate?
you cant tell. its ambiguous... it could even be a happy accident which puts it in between both things. we have moved into an era where state paranoia may be the only way to protect oneself. and thats definitely not good.
ultimately the russian peoples are not responsible for this. one does not hold a population that does not wish to commit suicide for your cause external, as being responsible for not doing that. and ultimately they are going to suffer.
while i have a large beef with that poltical machine and such, i want it clear i have no beef at all with the russian peoples. why should i? i have yet to hear a decent reason.
do remember that i think their developing 5G warfare doctrins is what is making them paranoid. the same logic that creates that ambiguity, will create a sort of angst in the truly paranoid that the normal person can put abay (which is what makes the normal person delusional when its real)
i also think that the war in iraq did something to show that we will cut them off from their weapons games and such. if you read the stuff from putin talking about how he was double crossed (or how it sounds), and it might be easier to see that he thought that in the age of cooperation we meant that no one would play this chess game.
russia and the US cant be taken by 3G. nuclear weapons eventually leads to 5G warfare and 4G proxies. what it took was the time to realize the implications fully and absorb the premises and then to act on them.
iran wants nuclear weapons because of that 3G panacea. not necessarily to use them. they may want to, but thats not half as practical as not having to worry abotu large scale invasion, and to then move to the next level of interstate intrigue as the only way to wage conflict.
the house of mirrors has now fully expanded to encompass everything. the failure of the cold war and its pseudo end was in not convincing russia that time and such would heal it and we could get along doing lots of business... if the christian church could have its reformation, so could the russian state, an islam, etc.
however, paranoia is not something that cures well in conversation. and the current russian leaders were created in the crucible of the paranoia that happens when the spheres of action are limited to a sort of passive agressive thing.
in fact, nuclear weapons turns countries into passive agressive paranoids that act in ambiguous ways that makes honest detent almost impossible.
and the most paranoid side makes most of its time considering plots angles, and things to the point that so much energy is wasted on that, and feeding the delusion, that they are no longer effective as leaders. in fact they tend to always feel there is an external AND internal threat and so never settle down to good governance.
like a person washing their hands with ocd, they cant stop. they tell themselves that this isthe last time they will wash, and they will be clean. but because they never could deal with the ambiguous in a healthy way, their paranoia pushes them to act in an unhealthy way justified in some form of argument of self preservation.
it will get a lot more rockier before it gets calmer... and the only thing thats preventing it from getting much rockier is that if they dont, then we will end up slowly becoming like them in the west through all the 40 years of socialist injections by the fronts and things. but if they cant keep their actions at bay, then the US may snap too... and in a VERY short time abandon its willingness to allow antithesis to negate its existence.
chavez is probably the one that will stimulate such back stepping, and probably will make the other larger comrades pissed.
time will tell..
after all, these are not the only scenarios possible. though most states work many scenarioes at once, not pick one and go with that.
Artfldgr says:
thanks LaRussophobe, i will keep that in mind. good advice.
as to other things
I agree that Russia's strengthening but I see no alarm like alarmist Artfldgr there.
I am not being an alarmist. I will be the first to say that I cant tell you exactly what they are doing, only that given history, its not that good for their people, we wont like what they would like for us in the west, and it will not be morally limited as that was always seen in the old days as a arbitrary limiting weakness.
I would suggest reading some of the stuff that Antero Leitzinger has written
He is a Finnish historian whose specialties are Russian and Islamic history. Or at the very least, if you do not find his work appealing, or too tin hat, you could read the sword and the shield, by Christopher Andrew,Vasili Mitrokhin,Charles Stransky. Though antero quotes a lot from that source and quite a few others that are openly available, like the washinton times, la times, etc.. read that and you might think you ate a mushroom and fell down a rabbit hole.
The main stream media does not talk with much knowledge about current situations. It’s mostly noise and chatter, and amounts to an emotional tug of war that never really goes anywhere.
Right now they are coming out in colors because the US has them close to a bad check mate. I staunchly believe that the popular chatter about the war, never touches on the simple fact that a land mass line would be completed with Iraq, and Iran, and that would mean no overland or over air shipments of weapons into Africa or the middle east.
Most people don’t remember them, or cant separate the propaganda from the real facts of old Russia. (for good reasons). And a heck of a lot more people are just waiting for the right articles to fill them in the way they want to hear it. if they hear something that doesn’t jive from their kitchy world view, they don’t believe it.
I think it was Nixon that said that the average person is like the small child in the family. This is that the masses are generally or were generally shielded by the no holds barred game that was being played around them and among them, and really couldn’t be seen.
Russia, and especially old hat KGB Russia, does not have happy warm fuzzy feelings about the west, nor about how it had to loosen up to get things they wanted from the west, and be able to freely get other things done that in their prior formation, was not at all possible.
Meet the new state, same as the old state…
The scariest part isn’t over yet. Most westerners don’t realize what they are capable of, they don’t take them seriously. It hasn’t sunk in that since the polity hasn’t changed, and they control it all, and can control it with an iron fist, the old days of the gulags and such could come back (this being more real for the Stalin as hero teachings).
Rather than the openness and prosperity leading to lower weapons and a good chance at not having to waste things, they have built up again. And personally I think they jumped the gun. That Putin would rather be on watch for whatever will be pulled, than the next person, is something he doesn’t want to give up on.
In many ways this should also be in Americans thoughts and many of the facts about things would be better off part of that consideration. I cant tell you what Russia will do, what putin will do. I can say that his ability to do a lot is very real and we shouldn’t poo poo it, but watch it. we should also watch Chavez too, he will be the source of a world of trouble in the coming years (more likely than not).
Artfldgr says:
Russian, lets put this in perspective…
Just think: the US has her military budget bigger than the rest of the world.
What does it matter if the US military budget is that large. Give me the name of a country in the last 100 years that the US has taken over and not released to its people?
Now give me the name of a country in the last 100 years that socialist states have released.
Whats the main difference? Well the US has done so when they were on the ups, and the socialist states have done so only when they have no longer the ability to hang on to it and have to release it or be dragged into a combat that they are not strong enough to win.
Again, what does it matter what size it is? Also, where does the money go? Does it go to stockpiling nuclear weapons? No, we have reduced our weapons a whole lot. what does it go to?
Well, your looking at the military budget and you are thinking guns. However it goes to huge boondoggle equipment that is funky, but as iraq can show you not as effective as people think it is (so they are overspending). The largest outlays for our military is the maintenance of defence systems on behalf of other countries.
When you say military budget, are you deducting the costs of the nato missiles we provide? Are you deducting the stuff that we are handling on behalf of other states?
Are you also computing what those states expenditure would be if they had to defend themselves and not be sure that the US would come to their rescue?
Does England spend as much as they would if there was no US. does italy, france, germany, japan, and such spend as much as they would if the US was not there?
In other words the US expenditures amount influences other peoples amounts, and drives them down. this makes it look worse, but it only looks worse. If the US didn’t have such a military, what would have happened to korea by now? how about Taiwan? How about most of the asian areas?
if the US didn’t have such a military, then instead of us talking about the poor state of the Russian people and how their leadership is really hurting them, we would be talking about the large scale war in Europe. The mitroken archives, and other sources revealed that the military run up in the late 70s and early 80s, prevented a planned invasion of several Warsaw pact countries (the most notable would be Poland)
Ryszard Kuklinski was an army colonel that spied for the US, and provided the details of Warsaw pact plans to impose martial law on Poland in 80/81
In fact, there is a huge ton of history that is not in the public mind. The history is available, its not tin hat, though lots of tin hats mix it with their other stuff, and such….
You don’t judge tin hat by how outrageous the acts are, you judge it by whether it’s factual or not and comes from good sources and is confirmed by other sources.
The US has had a public agenda of not talking about Russia in a bad light. As a state it wanted people to be willing to deal with them and to believe that they are coming around as a state.
Haven’t you noticed that in 40 years there are no movies that cover the bad about Russia state? No movies that show what Mao did? No movies to cover the really almost unbelievable things that they accomplished in their black ops. There are literally hundreds of movies and documentaries about an Austrian man who partnered with them, but that partnership is even played down.
In this game, noticing what’s missing is more important than noticing what’s done for your purview.
The US military power is unmatched by any other military force in the world.
True… but do you judge by the size and quantity the motives of someone or do you judge them by their actions. Where are the massive forces to use that weaponry and invade?
They don’t exist. And you need large masses of troops to actually invade and take over a country by force. Even Iraq we arent doing that, we don’t have enough troops. Though I don’t expect you to understand those key differences, what you want is some easy thing that a 6 year old can judge and make a conclusion of. He has more blocks than me, and so he is more dangerous. Again, its not how many, its what you do with them.
Look! They are afraid of Iran or Venezuela! Ha-ha! Is it paranoia or what kind of craziness?
No… its an understanding about things that you have been kept in the dark about. How many people would it take to take over a medium city in the US? how many people could paralyze cities?
The Washington belt sniper paralyzed and area and he was a loon? What could a spetznats trained group of say 10 people, with a large amount of cash (so they don’t have to go near things), driving in specially outfitted cars, and sniping people as they traveled, do to the US?
In the new war, one does not invade with a million troops. One invades with 1000 hidden troops, and then one pushes guerrilla war. The main key to that is weapons, and many groups (including old russia) have buried caches of weapons in the US and other countries. Some have been found.
Your still thinking in terms of 3G warfare. You are still living in the militarily backwards past where troops landed and by sheer numbers overwhelmed their enemies and were able to seize land and move forward driving themselves to the leaders of the other side.
For the most part, that’s over. Its been over since Vietnam and Korea.
Your still living in a world where MAD is your security. However MAD relies on the sides knowing who is doing what. false flag war, after grey terror, could have a devastating effect on the US and or other countries.
Cocaine smugglers have smuggled TONS of cocaine in at one shot. What could be done with 2 tons of ak101s, ammo, and giving them out for free to tons of fringe groups?
Did you know that the US has averaged around 200 terrorist attacks on their soil per year since the soviet GRU and such pumped up islam and reformed it to a Marxist version (or haven’t you hear osamas economic points?)
Ask an ordinary person in any country in the world about who is the biggest threat to the peace in the world. 90% will say: the USA
Most people in the world live in socialist authoritarian dictatorships. And how do you define peace in socialist terms?
As a westerner, your idea of peace is when war is out of sight. When there are no people you can see overtly attacking each other. when people can do business and not have to worry about armies, and maneuvers. Right?
Well socialists, define peace as a world in which there is no opposition to socialism (communism)…
So ask the socialists who is the greatest threat to peace, they hear it as who is the greatest threat to global communism/socialism. and of course the most threatening to a planned economy is the more free market Americans.
If you wanted to know who is the largest threat for nasty things, that would be the polilticos of the pragmatics dialectical materialists.
You have reletevated that the most dangerous country in the world is NOT the country that slaughters their own to the tune of 100 million, not the state that has poisoned people and manipulated immigrant populations in other countries as a resource. Not the country that has just made a new nuclear bomb… (how many years did that take? And what were they telling us during those years?)…
Oh.. and the country that is the most transparent is the most dangerous. The US does not hide its troop movements, does not hide its expenditures.. your assuming that china and russia have reported their expenditures honestly like they do in the west.
We took over france… who has france now? they took over north korea, who has it now? we took over the countries all the way to germany, and half of germany. Who has those countries and runs them? did we load up all their infrastructure and take it? did we rebuild it out of our own pockets and didn’t ask for the money back? what happened to the countries that were taken by the communists? They didn’t get free till when? (the 80s… more than 40 years after the war was over!!!! I distinctly remember that France got their country back within a couple of years) germany got its country back… well half of it.. it wasn’t till when that the wall came down and east germany was allowed to self govern?
Russians are peaceful, nice people.
Oh, I agree whole heartedly… to a degree… the people themselves just want to live their lives and such and not be bothered with all this. they would like to own businesses, and work jobs and make things, and have good times. They would like to be free, no one from the state spying on them, and tons of other things.
However, many of them are not nice people. Many of them have had their selves molded by the past regimes. Many of them have been made schizo by a country state that forced them to lie when they knew the truth, and flip as needed to stay alive. Many of them learned how to survive was to become sociopathic.
This was one of the most serious detriments to their rebuilding their country. The honest entrepreneurs ended up in gulags. And those more willing to take honest risks were moved out of the population. Those who were cunning and could cheat and still stay alive, they survived. Natural selection would dictate that those who are left are more likely to be adaptable in a negative way if such living situation presents itself.
They disarmed voluntarily in 1989-92
They did?
Read stalins paper that came out just after the Korean war, "Marxism and the Problems of Linguistics."
I gave you a bit of this above, with the definition of peace. You have heard leftists say… “but that’s not MY definition of that word:, and there is the trick. That when they say freedom, or peace, they are not using the COMMON definition, but are using their reformed definition while the other side is assuming the COMMON definition.
This approach has been used with the leftist concepts of PC gender. Sex denotes male and female. Gender denotes male and female too. but if they are the same, then why the switch to gender? Well, gender also has OTHER meanings. So you switch gender for sex under its synonymic meaning, and later you use its OTHER meanings to get what you want. In this way, language and linguistics becomes a new battle field.
Nasty eh?
Here is another example..
Under despotisms like those in Russia and China, language is never straightforward. Realities are expressed indirectly, so that only the faithful, the "insiders," know what is really being said. In this way outsiders are routinely deceived about what the leaders in Russia and China really intend. To take one example: the idea that Russia is a "democracy," that the Russians now enjoy "freedom," is one of those misunderstandings that Moscow has successfully promoted by the use of Stalinist linguistics.
Take the word "perestroika" for example. Many don't know this, but "perestroika" was Stalin's favorite word. It means "reorganization" or "restructuring." In the West we took this to signify the democratization and liberalization of the Soviet Union and its satellites. But for Gorbachev and his fellow Politburo members it meant something quite different. In order to demonstrate this difference in language, let me quote from a telegram that Yeltsin sent to Gorbachev on the 1988 anniversary of the October Revolution:
Dear Mikhail Sergeyevich: Accept my congratulations on our great holiday -- the seventy-first anniversary of the October Revolution! Believing in the victory of perestroika, I wish for you, through the efforts of the Party that you lead and all of the people, complete implementation of Lenin's wishes and dreams for our country. -- Boris
So rather than the fall of the soviet union being a collapse and an approach to freedom, it was a restructuring because the old structure failed. The other states didn’t invade and remove those leaders, and so they reformed themselves into another form, and then went back on the attack. (this having little to do with the Russian people, who know even less of this game).
They realized that communication and dealing with the west was necessary to defeating the west. These so called leaders are hell bent on what they have ALWAYS been hell bent on.
And the Russian people will be caught in the middle again.
Artfldgr says:
cont....
You say they disarmed…
Did you check this fact? Or did you assume that since they signed the INF treaty that they followed it? what have you actually read to confirm this, or have you assumed that if they cheated the world would scream and you would know?
When salt 1 was signed Russia had a 3-2 advantage in intercontinental ballistic missiles. Salt II came along and it remained in effect with the US ONLY up until 1985. it was never ratified, because the soviet union invaded Afghanistan. However, the US unilaterally kept the treaty and followed it, while Russia ignored it.
Many wars have been started or influenced by Russian leaderships agencies of change, and have been fighting a proxy war. However the west doesn’t know the details because its not reflected in the main stream media. The details are not secret, its just that everyone listens to talking heads and doesn’t read things themselves. so rather than russia not willing to start a war with the US, russia never stopped waring against the west. Its actually been a constant state of war that as been relegated into the shadows, and kept out of the sight of the “children in the family”
That brings us up quickly to the time period you refer to in your post.
According to 1991 stats, russias defense spending was 8% (down from 11-13% in the 1970s) of their gross national product… while the US was only 5.7% (down from 6.1% in the 1970s)…
Which is why the propaganda looks at absolute numbers… because a smaller percentage of a larger amount looks worse than a large percentage of a small amount.
However, it also shows that the only thing restricting them was the amount of money in their wallets. If the US had similar spending then and since, the military would be much larger than it is now!!! isn’t that weird? Not at all if you’re a real thinking person that doesn’t like it when intelligentsia play mental shell games.
What did they spend it all on? well they spent it on the largest network of undergrounhd bunker cities. In that way, nuclear war is an acceptable tactic… there are literally dozens of underground hardened cities that can house numbers as large as 50k or more people. (recently they have used the money to upgrade them. the US has nothing similar as the US does not believe that there could be a first strike due to MAD. However false flag makes it possible…lots of things are possible, that doesn’t mean that they will happen)
"In the struggle for peace and social progress the Communist Party of the Soviet Union pursues a consistent policy of rallying the forces of the international communist and working-class movement in every possible way. We uphold the historical justness of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, and along with all the revolutionary and peace loving forces of mankind, stand for social progress, and peace and security for all nations. This is what should determine the resolute nature of our propaganda."
That was gorbachev…
"In our work and worries, we are motivated by those Leninist ideals and noble endeavors and goals which mobilized the workers of Russian seven decades ago to fight for the new and happy world of Socialism. Perestroika (restructuring) is a continuation of the October Revolution.”
And
"Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."
Those are his words…
Start was signed july 31 1991 in moscow… daddy bush signed it. I was to reduce the amount of strategic weapons by 30%... and is the set of treaties you refer to in your post.
This weapons reduction was to be in three phases, over the next seven years. They avoided this reduction by saying that they don’t have the weapons any more the satellites do. so rather than a reduction from the total, there was only a token reduction based on what they had in their main country. (again, playing games with words, and things is the common thing, not the uncommon one. and like the three stooges, the west gets suckered almost every time. after all your suckered!)
Start II was signed in 1993, and the satellites had not yet all complied or joined start I, in fact many of them tied themselves up purposefully in negotiations and stalled… the longer of which the more US missles were destroyed, and the more soviet stuff was still around, but in a seeming ambiguous state.
Start II called for a further disarmament and was the largest treaty of its kind in history. Both sides had 10 years to reduce the number of long range missiles to one third and totally eliminate all land based multiple warhead missiles… (the new Russian nuke, is land based missile with 10 warheads… oops… their bad).
The CTB (comprehensive test ban treaty) was signed in 96, but the senate refused to ratify it. the reason being that without some testing the viability of those missles not destroyed couldn’t be guaranteed.
In 2001, current bush, and putin went further to break the numbers down to 1/3 of the 1/3 left from start II.
"The point is that the Communist goal is fixed and changeless it never varies one iota from their objective of world domination, but if we judge them only by the direction in which they seem to be going, we shall be deceived."
That was the wife of Andrei Sakharov.
According to most estimates, the Soviet Union possessed more than 27,000 nuclear weapons in 1991 These include more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons -- warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and weapons on bombers with the range needed to attack the continental United States -- along with more than 15,000 warheads for tactical nuclear weapons (such as artillery shells, short-range missiles, nuclear air-defense and ballistic missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes and sea-launched cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft). Additional information that became available in late 1993 indicated that the Soviet Union had at one time possessed almost 45,000 nuclear warheads -- 12,000 more than had generally been thought to exist by Western analysts. In addition, the same source indicated that the Russian inventory of bomb-grade uranium was now believed to be nearly 1,200 tons -- more than twice as large as was formerly thought to exist.
So not only did they cheat on the destruction of weapons (that I will show), but they lied as to how many they had… are you following?
Want to laugh harder? Well we paid them billions to help them take apart missles that amounted to fakes because of the false counts.
the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program in 91/92 authorized the transfer of 800 million from defense department budgets.
Remember when you started this you said that we have the largest budget? Did you know that billions of OUR budget goes to the Russian leadership? That over the years your mentioning, we subsidized their military?
An additional $400 million was authorized for FY1994
$380 million was authorized in FY1995
$300 million was approved for FY1996.
That comes to nearly 2 billion of American defense budget that is in your thinking going to the American military machine, and it went to the Russian one. of course the Russian military machine didn’t add that to its total military spending sicne that was Americas military spending!!
Say we both had 500 million in military..
If the US spends 100 million to russia… russia then only spends 400 million
However the 100 million reduced america, and so russia needs only spend 300 million and both sides would be MATCHED in amounts.
Except that the real totals would be 400 million for the US military… at an expense of 500 million…
And 400 million for the Russian military, at an expense of 300 million by russia.
And so russia spends 300 million and the US spends almost double… but because you only look at the totals and make assumptions, they can work your emotional view over your rational view and make a claim that American military is dangerously large.
[how many other countries militaries are partially funded by out military budget? What is the real number applied to our own service, not what the total is for everything we do!]
The Clinton Administration requested an additional $327.9 million for FY1997
The House approved $302.9 million in its version of the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 3230) but the Senate approved the full administration request for FY1997 and added $37 million for DOD efforts and $57 million for DOE efforts in its version of the bill (S. 1745).
The House-Senate conference committee on the Defense Authorization Bill approved the Senate's funding levels for the CTR program, providing a total of 364.9 million for DOD, in addition to the funds for DOE, in the final version of the FY1997 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-201).
By early September 1996, DOD had notified Congress of its intent to spend $1.5 billion of the funds available and had obligated more than $1 billion after signing specific project contracts with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. More than $600 million had been spent on these projects. Some of the projects are common to all republics holding former Soviet weapons, while others were specifically designed for Russia as the successor nuclear weapons state to the Soviet Union.
Nunn-Lugar programs are $236 million in assistance to Russia specifically for the elimination of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, $243 million to Ukraine for the same purpose, and $78 million to assist in the destruction of SS-18 missile silos in Kazakhstan.
All that is from fas.org
Now… as of feb 4 2003… (from cdi)
The missles numbers stand at…US has 10,656 total nuclear weapons… (US is transparent, and reports the real totals and allows inspections).
Russias total is not known… but it is estimated to be on par with 10,000 nuclear weapons.
"Russia is currently estimated to have about 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads plus 3,400 tactical nuclear weapons. It should be noted, however, that estimates of Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal vary widely, ranging upwards to 10,000-15,000 when estimates include weapons waiting dismantlement."
Given that during the salt talks they had an extra 12,000, their actual numbers can be several times what is reported…
For economic reasons, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal is likely to decline to fewer than 2,000 warheads by 2015, according to U.S. intelligence estimates.
So they are basically signing things that say reduce this much in 7 years… but they cant meet that and will take more than 20 years to do it… meanwhile, the us has complied, and the numbers are down.
So not only did they lie as to what they had… they are lying as to what they are doing with them.. they are signing new treaties, and they are doing the same old jig that they have done for almost 100 years..
Post a comment
TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/374
|
