View Full Version : That "reset" button is really working wonders, huh?
Stankleberry Sullivan
10-14-2009, 03:16 PM
Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/russia-well-nuke-aggressors-first/)
Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.
They are also refusing sanctions on Iran (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43160620091014). Good job with the diplomacy, retard Democrats.
The mise-en-place of that article stirs pots that would otherwise not be.
The word "posturing" doesn't seem to occur anywhere in it.
An alternate view:
<<...Russian military analysts said the hawkish former domestic intelligence chief's remarks were mostly muscle-flexing for show, because what he revealed about the proposed new doctrine suggests it differs little from the current one.
One independent analyst, Alexander Golts, said current policy already allows for a nuclear strike to repel an aggression of any sort. Another, Pavel Felgenhauer, said that effectively allows for a pre-emptive strike because the type of aggression that would warrant such a strike is not clearly defined.
Russia' NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, argued the proposed doctrine does not contradict arms reduction efforts. "We are moving toward a reduction in nuclear arsenals," he told Ekho Moskvy radio.>>
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091014/eu-russia-military-doctrine/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091014/eu-russia-military-doctrine/
Have the Russians served notice on you, Stank? If I were they, I'd consider your stance on this question particularly aggressive.
The really amusing part of Stank's righteous fury?
The Russians are changing their policy to match that of the US.
The US has refused to pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons since their introduction, and the threatened first use of nuclear weapons was a cornerstone of NATO deterrence of a Soviet invasion of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
Also amusingly, the policy he's up in arms over was changed a decade ago.
NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy, arguing that preemptive nuclear strike is a key option. In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge given by erstwhile-Soviet Union to not use nuclear weapons first. In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use of nuclear weapons against it and also "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".
Stankleberry Sullivan
10-14-2009, 03:44 PM
The really amusing part of Stank's righteous fury?
The Russians are changing their policy to match that of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
You do not know how to read.
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 03:48 PM
The really amusing part of Stank's righteous fury?
The Russians are changing their policy to match that of the US.
The US has refused to pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons since their introduction, and the threatened first use of nuclear weapons was a cornerstone of NATO deterrence of a Soviet invasion of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
Also amusingly, the policy he's up in arms over was changed a decade ago.
Well duh
Do you have any idea of the conventional force disparity we faced during the cold war.
Aimee Weber
10-14-2009, 03:49 PM
I consider this a positive change in international politics because, frankly, James Bond movies have completely sucked since the mid 90's.
Shagazm
10-14-2009, 03:56 PM
It's a bluff, it's always a bluff. Does it work? Seeing as conservatives like Stank wet their pants upon hearing the news, I guesssssss so. :shrug:
Well duh
Do you have any idea of the conventional force disparity we faced during the cold war.
I didn't say I disagreed with it. Although given the performance of Soviet hardware in the Gulf War, with T-72 shells bouncing merrily and harmlessly off of M1 armor, I suspect the Russians are grateful they never actually tried to test that "disparity".
It's just a little hypocritical to complain about the Russians deciding to have the same policy regarding nuclear weapons usage that we do.
Stankleberry Sullivan
10-14-2009, 03:58 PM
It's a bluff, it's always a bluff. Does it work? Seeing as conservatives like Stank wet their pants upon hearing the news, I guesssssss so. :shrug:
But what happened to change? Why are the Russians still "bluffing" even after Obama bowed down to them and gave them what they wanted on our missile defense? Wouldn't it have made sense for the US to get something out of that deal, instead of just fucking over our friends in Poland and Czech Republic?
Smart diplomacy.
I didn't say I disagreed with it. Although given the performance of Soviet hardware in the Gulf War, with T-72 shells bouncing merrily and harmlessly off of M1 armor, I suspect the Russians are grateful they never actually tried to test that "disparity".
Well, you're forgetting to mention that they were also severely militarily extended at the time, deploying their forces in some futile Middle Eastern hellhole somewhere, destroying their own conventional force strength by continually flushing it down the desert toilet.
Geez, what was the name of that place again?
Yeah, we sure showed that evil Russian empire, deploying untested missile defense systems that don't actually work far out of range of their intended targets! Darn that Obama, leaving our allies in the lurch against the possibility of shooting down 2% of Soviet, er, Russian missiles in a world-destroying nuclear conflict!
(Note to Stank: google Nord Stream. That's far more of a threat from Russia than anything you're hyperventilating about.)
Shagazm
10-14-2009, 04:03 PM
It's hard to say whether or not any deal was brokered between us and the Russians. If we get their support on Iran, we can attribute it directly to the missile shield deal. This bluff is just the nature of military weak states trying to save face. It was painfully obvious in the Georgian conflict that Russia might HAVE to rely on nuclear weapons to deter "enemies."
Geez, what was the name of that place again?
MOUNTAINS. Not desert, MOUNTAINS. As we proved in the Gulf War, hunting tanks in the desert is fun and easy. Hunting guerillas in the Hindu Kush, not so much.
Shagazm
10-14-2009, 04:10 PM
You're not allowed to laugh at my posts anymore, Stank. :fist::fist::fist::fist::fist: THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DEAL!! THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DEAL.
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 04:25 PM
The soviets suffered a moral defeat in Afghanistan
They did not overextend themselves from a manpower standpoint. Their training and tactics were at fault.
Nor did they lose more than a small fraction of on-hand equipment. More equipment is/was probably lost during training accidents yearly than what was lost in Afghanistan.
They still have 3 plants pushing out tanks and 5-6 (minimum) producing other armored vehicles
They could have lost 10 times what was destroyed in Afghanistan and never missed it.
The relatives of the over 13,000 dead Soviet soldiers would disagree.
io Kukulcan
10-14-2009, 04:34 PM
with T-72 shells bouncing merrily and harmlessly off of M1 armor,
They never got a shot off, I'm pretty sure.
And also, I think one of JFK's policies was to ensure the US would never strike first with nukes.
He totally pulled the rug out from under Kruschev with that one.
They never got a shot off, I'm pretty sure.
There was a tank battle fought at point blank range (one of the largest since WW2) where shots were fired, to little avail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 04:45 PM
The relatives of the over 13,000 dead Soviet soldiers would disagree.
Has nothing to do with their military being overextended
If your army is in the millions, and manpower is replaced completely every 2 years, 13,000 is an insignificant figure.
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 04:45 PM
There was a tank battle fought at point blank range (one of the largest since WW2) where shots were fired, to little avail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
We could see
They coundn't
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 05:05 PM
Another thing about that battle
The T-72 was generally supplied to it's satellite states and for export. Few Soviet units were issued it and it was believed they had upgraded optics/firecontrol systems(the 2nd Guards and a few others being the exception).
As such it was not of the quality as what was issued to the soviet units, T-64/T-80
Richard Waveington
10-14-2009, 05:44 PM
*nod* :)
<<On his arrival in power in March 1985, the new Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev expressed his impatience with the Afghan conflict. He demanded that a solution be found before a one-year deadline. As a result, the size of the LCOSF (Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces) was increased to 108,800 and fighting increased throughout the country, making 1985 the bloodiest year of the war. However, despite suffering heavily, the mujahideen were able to remain in the field and continue resisting the Soviets.>>
...
Soviet personnel strengths and casualties
Afghanistan War monument in Donetsk
Afghans commemorating Mujahideen Victory Day.
Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.
The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.
There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 92 percent, or 10,751 men, were left disabled.[71]
After the war ended, the Soviet Union published figures of dead Soviet soldiers: the total was 13,836 men, an average of 1,512 men a year. According to updated figures, the Soviet army lost 14,427, the KGB lost 576, with 28 people dead and missing.[72]
Material losses were as follows:[citation needed]
* 451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters)
* 147 tanks
* 1,314 IFV/APCs
* 433 artillery guns and mortars
* 1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
* 510 engineering vehicles
* 11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
[edit] Damage to Afghanistan
Over 1 million Afghans were killed.[73] 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.[74]
Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).[75]
Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or government forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or government troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [74]
The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets and Afghan communist soldiers in 1987.[76] Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10-15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet and government forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside to kill and maim.[77]
A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines. A 2005 report estimated 3-4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and government land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found over 80% of the children refugees unregistered and child mortality at 31%. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age.[78]
Critics of Soviet and Afghan government forces describe their effect on Afghan culture as working in three stages: first, the center of customary Afghan culture, Islam, was pushed aside; second, Soviet patterns of life, especially amongst the young, were imported; third, shared Afghan cultural characteristics were destroyed by the emphasis on so-called nationalities, with the outcome that the country was split into different ethnic groups, with no language, religion, or culture in common.[79]
The Geneva Accords of 1988, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in early 1989, left the Afghan government in ruins. The accords had failed to address adequately the issue of the post-occupation period and the future governance of Afghanistan. The assumption among most Western diplomats was that the Soviet-backed government in Kabul would soon collapse; however, this was not to happen for another three years. During this time the Interim Islamic Government of Afghanistan (IIGA) was established in exile. The exclusion of key groups such as refugees and Shias, combined with major disagreements between the different mujaheddin factions, meant that the IIGA never succeeded in acting as a functional government.[80]
Before the war, Afghanistan was already one of the world's poorest nations. The prolonged conflict left Afghanistan ranked 170 out of 174 in the UNDP's Human Development Index, making Afghanistan one of the least developed countries in the world.[81]
Once the Soviets withdrew, US interest in Afghanistan ceased. The US decided not to help with reconstruction of the country and instead they handed over the interests of the country to US allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Pakistan quickly took advantage of this opportunity and forged relations with warlords and later the Taliban, to secure trade interests and routes. From wiping out the country's trees through logging practices, which has destroyed all but 2% of forest cover country-wide, to substantial uprooting of wild pistachio trees for the exportation of their roots for therapeutic uses, to opium agriculture, the past ten years have caused much ecological and agrarian destruction.[82]
Captain Tarlan Eyvazov, a soldier in the Soviet forces during the war, stated that the Afghan children's future is destined for war. Eyvazov said, "Children born in Afghanistan at the start of the war... have been brought up in war conditions, this is their way of life." Eyvazov's theory was later strengthened when the Taliban movement developed and formed from orphans or refugee children who were forced by the Soviets to flee their homes and relocate their lives in Pakistan. The swift rise to power, from the young Taliban in 1994, was the result of the disorder and civil war that had warlords running wild because of the complete breakdown of law and order in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets.[83]
The CIA World Fact Book reported that as of 2004, Afghanistan still owed $8 billion in bilateral debt, mostly to Russia,[84] however, in 2007 Russia agreed to cancel most of the debt.[85]
[wiki]
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 06:33 PM
If that's your attempt at proving they were overextended, it falls short
A snapshot in June 1989 shows 5 Motorized Rifle Divisions and 12 independent Bde's/Rgts deployed to Afghanistan, which would be a fairly accurate picture for the war.
Now considering in June 1989, they had in excess of 180 additional divisions (A/B/C category) (I lost count around there) and countless independent bde/regt's within the Soviet Union and deployed in the warsaw pact countries, I hardly think that the Afghanistan deployment overextended them.
And as far as the equipment losses, the soviet industry produced in months what was lost in the entire war.
They failed due to training and tactics
What's so hard to understand about that
(edit, it also became a political disaster)
(edit, it also became a political disaster)
This is the primary problem.
Note also that the US won every battle it fought in Vietnam - in fact the Tet Offensive was a massive American victory that broke the back of the Viet Cong and kept it off the field for months. However, politically, the US could not sustain those levels of losses, and the NVA/VC could. Afghanistan was similar for the USSR - the steady drip of returning mentally smashed veterans and physically smashed coffins did massive damage to Soviet morale.
General Alexander Lebed, a Soviet military commander (and probably Russia's most honest post-Soviet politician, which would explain his mysterious death in a helicopter crash) in his memoirs wrote a great deal about Afghanistan, where he served, which would have been very familiar to Vietnam vets. The Soviets could not win because there was no possible way for them to win. They could only stay and bleed.
VictoriaK
10-14-2009, 09:03 PM
This is the primary problem.
.
Wonders.....
Is this the first time we have reached an agreement on something?
:)
I agree that the Soviets could only stay and bleed. I should have said something along with that first paragraph, up there, about their "surge", to make my point clearer.
I have this bad tendency to just put the articles out there w/out stating my thoughts. Sorry.
Phoenix Psaltery
10-14-2009, 09:22 PM
It's just interesting that both the Soviets and the US have had difficulty fighting land wars in Asia.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/lavender/403/Vizzini.JPG
I TOLD YOU SO! -Vizzini
P2
The Princess Bride School of Poli Sci...
GradyE
10-18-2009, 02:09 PM
Don't march on Moscow.
Don't get involved in a land war in Asia.
Not a good idea to bomb Pearl Harbour either.
Monna
10-18-2009, 10:41 PM
His America sucks and apology tour is not paying off the way he thought
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.