Originally Posted by MsPaulRevere
What does that tell ya...
Senator
What does that tell ya...
Chains of habit are too light to be felt, until they are too heavy to be broken
Nothing happens unexpectedly, everything has an indication, we just have to observe the connections." Also... the more people I meet, the more I like my dogs!
Esquire
same here.
Article was over before it started.
Judge
Surprise nuclear missile attack
Published: 11/11/1999 at 1:00 AM
J.R. Nyquist
The official Russian acronym for surprise nuclear attack is VRYAN. It derives from the Russian words, “vnezapnoye raketno-yadernoye napadenie.” In the early 1980s the Russians began one of their most intensive intelligence operations, which went by the code-name of VRYAN. This operation involved an unprecedented collaboration between the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) and the Soviet secret police (KGB). This operation was tasked with examining a wide range of U.S. actions to determine if America was preparing for nuclear war.
According to Russian strategists, preparations for a world war cannot be hidden. After all, nuclear war isn’t something you decide on Tuesday morning and initiate on the following Friday afternoon. Such a war requires intensive planning and preparation over a period of months and years. The destructive effects of nuclear weapons cannot be otherwise mitigated. Therefore, special tasks must be carried out to assure post-war recovery, and for the exploitation of what Russian strategists call “nuclear rocket supremacy.” For example, an attacker must quietly move key factories to secret underground locations. An attacker must also stockpile strategic supplies, raw materials, food, fuel, and machine tools for rebuilding vital industries. In fact, the most dramatic advanced measures would have to appear in open press reports.
The Russian generals believe that only an extensive disinformation campaign could mask such preparations. If factories are to be moved, a benign explanation must be offered. If troops are mobilized, if security is to be increased at strategic facilities, a phony internal crisis must be presented as the root cause.
But how could anyone expect to win a nuclear war?
Nuclear war has two basic objectives. The first objective is the elimination of the enemy’s strategic weapons. The second objective is the preservation of friendly nuclear strength in order to blackmail the surviving countries. A country that successfully destroys all opposing nuclear weapons (while retaining a large nuclear reserve) can dictate the shape of the future.
In Russian thinking, a nuclear war is not simply an exchange of nuclear strikes. Many countries would be invaded and occupied in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange. Lacking the firepower to strike back, these countries wouldn’t dare to resist with conventional forces. In fact, all resistance would be smashed by Russia’s reserves of nuclear and biological weapons. A resisting country’s administrative centers would immediately suffer obliteration. Biological attacks would depopulate leading cities. Armies would collapse after the bombing of their supply bases. Horrible consequences would follow for millions of people.
This is how the successful side in a nuclear exchange can translate wholesale slaughter and destruction into a new world order. Even if the prevailing country has been devastated by counter-strikes, its reconstruction is assured by means of nuclear blackmail against undestroyed countries. Such blackmail would allow the prevailing country to rebuild its destroyed infrastructure and feed its people.
Even if half the people in a country are killed, this is no argument against victory.
It is true that other countries, besides Russia and America, possess nuclear weapons. Great Britain, France and Israel have several hundred nuclear weapons between them. But these arsenals are small and vulnerable. Bombing Russia and stirring the rubble of cities already bombed would be a laughable kind of deterrence.
If America’s nuclear forces were ever destroyed, Russia and China would control the earth. No power could resist them. No defense exists to stop them. Therefore, the eyes of the Russian General Staff are on America’s missiles. That is what they care most about. And it’s what they worry about. America’s nuclear forces protect Western civilization from destruction and conquest by the nuclear-armed barbarism of Russia and China.
The strategists who developed Russia’s VRYAN program understand all of this. In the early 1980s they listed hundreds of indicators of impending nuclear attack. In his book, “War Scare,” former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry mentions only a few of the VRYAN indicators. Among these, Pry lists any change in the day-to-day posture of U.S. or NATO forces, unusual high-level meetings, increased intelligence activity, suspicious disinformation, repressive measures against subversives, increased security at strategic sites. Among the economic indicators would be an increase in gold purchases and a drive by American blood banks to build up the blood supply.
Russian military doctrine has always stressed the need for striking first. A first strike is vital to final success. According to Pry, “Soviet military textbooks written in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s generally endorsed the view that nuclear war could be won and that victory was likely to go to the side that struck first.”
Any indication of a U.S. first strike would mean that Russia would have to strike even earlier. The reason a first strike is so important has to do with the nature of nuclear missile weapons. One defector from the Soviet General Staff, writing under the name Viktor Suvorov, compared the problem of nuclear war to that of two gunmen in the old West. The man who draws first will probably win the fight. His opponent might well be shot down before he can even pull the trigger.
Near the beginning of the Cold War many U.S. analysts, generals and politicians realized that nuclear missile weapons were inherently destabilizing because of the need to strike first. There would be strong temptations, they argued, for hitting an opponent that fell behind in a nuclear arms race. The idea was to strike before the weaker side could close the gap.
This temptation to strike first is so strong that it has even affected Western leaders. At a time when the United States had the only working atomic bombs, Winston Churchill privately urged U.S. leaders to deliver an ultimatum to Russia. In Marc Trachtenburg’s critically acclaimed book, “History and Strategy,” Churchill is quoted as saying, “We ought not to wait until Russia is ready.” In 1948 Churchill argued in the House of Commons for “bringing matters to a head” while America yet retained its atomic monopoly. Churchill told the House of Commons that this approach offered “the best chance of coming out of it alive.”
Churchill pointed to the extreme aggressiveness of the Russians at a time when the U.S. had all the nuclear weapons. Imagine, said Churchill, what will happen “when they get the atomic bomb and have accumulated a large store.”
Churchill was not alone in suggesting that the West should destroy its enemy while it had the chance. John von Neumann, a leading mathematician and the founder of game theory, said, “If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o’clock, I say why not one o’clock.”
This way of thinking may seem shocking for its immorality, and President Truman quickly moved to suppress it, but nobody can deny its logical character. According to Trachtenburg, State Department moderates like Charles Bohlen and George Kennan flirted with the idea of preventive war. Even the New York Times made unusual suggestions when William L. Laurence, the Times science correspondent in 1948, wrote about preemptively bombing Russia’s atomic plants before they could produce any bombs.
It was all empty talk, of course, because Americans don’t believe in unprovoked nuclear attacks — even against hair-trigger psychopaths like Stalin. Gen. Orvil Anderson, the head of the Air War College, was dismissed by President Truman for advocating a preventive war with Russia. According to Trachtenburg, Anderson had delivered long lectures to students on carrying out a preventive nuclear strike. “Give me the order to do it,” boasted Anderson, “and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week.
And when I went up to Christ — I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.”
Similar attitudes were present in other Air Force commanders — most notably in Gen. Curtis LeMay, the first general to command a nuclear offensive, famous for boasting that he was “bombing Japan into the stone age” during World War II. LeMay and Gen. George Kenney, first chief of America’s Strategic Air Command, along with Gen. Nathan Twining, were sympathetic to Anderson’s idea of a preventive nuclear war.
But as Marc Trachtenburg points out in his book, all the leading officials of the Truman administration hated the preventive war idea. Later, in 1953, President Eisenhower seriously considered expanding the Korean War into China because it had become a bloody mess with no end in sight. Eisenhower did not like the war’s lingering quality. Already, by late 1952 the Korean War had claimed 3 million lives, including more than 50,000 Americans. It was believed that widening the war might bring the Communists to the peace table, or trigger a full blown atomic war with Russia.
A major U.S. government study was conducted on the consequences of an atomic war with Russia in 1953. The study predicted that most of our European allies would retreat into neutrality. The study also predicted that the war would cost ten million American lives and last for ten years. Nonetheless, the study said that America would win the war. The Communists apparently agreed with this analysis, because after Eisenhower told them his intentions they quickly changed their position and agreed to an armistice on July 27, 1953.
Never again did an American president seriously threaten world war against the Communist bloc. By 1957 the idea of a winnable nuclear war against Russia had completely died out. It was no longer acceptable. Atomic bombs were being replaced by even more powerful “city busters” of thermonuclear design. By the early 1960s Khrushchev was boasting that Russia was mass producing intercontinental rockets “like sausages.” America’s nuclear superiority finally declined into nuclear parity and then into nuclear inferiority.
The nuclear stand-off lingers into the present. While the Russians watched carefully for signs of American nuclear war preparations, America remains totally oblivious to Russian preparations.
What would an American VRYAN list look like?
In next Monday’s column I will present a list of approximately 30 indicators of things you would expect to see if Russia were contemplating a nuclear war. Do Russia’s present moves conform with these indicators — many of them used by the Kremlin to predict an American nuclear attack?
http://www.wnd.com/1999/11/6392/
Revelation 14:7
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Land Owner
Here We Go Again!!!!
As I look Back on this Post and I know I admonished Those who Voted OTHER or Just stayed at Home in 2012, I guess we could Use Thunder Thighs Rendition of "What Diffrence Does it Make? I guess the OP is Right, we Have A One Party System In Reality, But like I said The Destruction of this Country is a Absolute Fact with BO at The Helm, and it may have just slowed down with Romney, But When One Considers How Fast Obama, started with EO"s and all the Crap the Republicans have Ate, we are on the Way...
With Romney we may have had more Time to Finish our Preps, and and we Might not have, the Dollar Collapse will Happen no Matter Who is POTUS, but a Little More time would have been Nice, now its Full Steam ahead into Dangerous Shoals!!!! Good Luck and God Bless all Members of The Tree!!!
Semper Fi
Running is not a plan=Running is what you do when a plan Fails!
Congressman
We're all gonna die someday. So you and your babies are on the freeway and a tractor trailer hits the median and is coming straight for your car with your babies in it. Your decision is to attempt to move the car out of the way, you must try right? Wrong! Those who allowed the marxist back on the throne turned their car and all of our cars into the tractor trailer under the guise, best we get it over quickly!
The author of the piece above is right on!
Many people had hoped that the fall of the US to marxist ideology could have been be delayed or possibly even stopped by voting for Romney, not because he was or was not conservative but because it was our only option thanks to the corrupt GOP. For Gods sake at the very least he believes in God, he was an american, a father that loved his children and wife and he loved his country. Please do not tell us what Romney would or would not have done, we will never know now.
By allowing the current despot back on the throne, you can be certain nothing will stop him or keep him from me or my children's throats.
Those of you who chose that path must accept it so as far as your keyboards beat away, Many will never forgive you when the dust settles and they bury their dead. Best to keep your voting records to yourselves because siathtf.
This man has spelled out exactly what is being done. This traitor has set us up to be disarmed and conquered PDQ.
Senator
This truth and also the great fear of millions of decent folks.Quoting from MsPaulRevere:
By allowing the current despot back on the throne, you can be certain nothing will stop him or keep him from me or my children's throats.
Excellent observation.
***
Even the bravest of us rarely has the courage for what he really knows. - Nietzsche
***
Congressman
Romney is not against abortion. He was in favor of forcing people to have health insurance (as in Massachusetts). He is not opposed to disarming people. The demons believe in God, too.
The only difference between Obama and Romney was that Obama wasn't trying as hard to hide his true self.
Land Owner
Russia’s Growing Military Power in Latin America
March 11, 2014
by Ramiro Sebastián Fúnez
As tensions between the United States and Russia over the future of the Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula continue to rise, Moscow officials may look to beef up their country’s stronghold in Latin America.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced on February 26 that his country is planning to expand its long-standing military presence in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, possibly bringing the U.S. and Russia’s icy diplomatic standoff into the Western Hemisphere.
Although Shoigu mentioned that Russia would also boost its armed presence in Vietnam, Singapore, the Seychelles and several other countries, Moscow’s anticipated embankment in Latin America will surely be perceived as a threat to U.S. defense policymakers.
“The talks are under way, and we are close to signing the relevant documents,” Shoigu said in a press conference in Moscow. “We need bases for refueling near the equator, and in other places,” he explained.
It is still unclear, however, whether Russia will construct new Moscow-owned bases in the proposed countries. Russia may only seek permission from already-existing naval defense ports to increase its access to military stations with refueling, maintenance and repair capabilities. The country’s only naval base outside the country is located in Tartus, Syria.
Conversely, the U.S. currently owns Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force facilities in several countries within Russia’s proximity, including South Korea, , Japan, Greeceand Turkey.
While U.S. government officials have not yet publicly commented on Russia’s military expansion plan, defense authorities could be apprehensive of the idea, especially considering Washington’s strained relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Cuba
Although Cuba maintained a strong relationship with Russia throughout the Cold War, military diplomacy between both nations came to a screeching halt during the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, Cuban President Raúl Castro and Russian President Vladimir Putin have recently improved military diplomacy—an armed Russian intelligence-gathering military vessel arrived in Havana the same day Shoigu made the announcement of his country’s increased presence in Latin America. The vessel also visited Havana in September 2012.
Despite minor improvements in U.S.-Cuba diplomacy, Russia continues to maintain a stronger military relationship with the Caribbean island than its northern neighbor—a bond that may worry defense officials in Washington and put them on the offensive as Putin beefs up his country’s defense capabilities.
Venezuela
Throughout former President Hugo Chávez’s tenure and President Nicolás Maduro’s current administration, Venezuela’s relationship with the United States has soured. One one side, Maduro and his supporters have accused the United States of destabilizing Venezuela by financing privatization efforts and supporting the campaigns of political opponents. Meanwhile, ongoing protests continue, led by opposition leaders like Leopoldo López and Henrique Capriles, who have accused the Bolivarian government of bringing Venezuela’s inflation and crime rates to unprecedented levels.
Deteriorating relations between Venezuela and the United States have established solidarity between Caracas and Moscow officials. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a meeting with Venezuelan counterpart Elías Jaua on Monday that his country supports Venezuela’s efforts to maintain stability in the country, which both governments feel are being undermined by U.S. support for opposition protests—Lavrov made the announcement a few days before Russia initiated talks with the Maduro administration about expanding its military presence in South America.
Although Jaua has said that Venezuela will “work hard to facilitate contacts with Russia,” he also, noted that, "because of the constitution, we cannot allow a foreign military installation in our country."
Nonetheless, Russia’s solidarity with Venezuela, coupled with its plans to shore up defense capabilities in South America, will likely upset Washington officials who are critical of both governments.
Nicaragua
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) has demonstrated his willingness to work with Putin, who he regards as his “brother president.”
Ortega asked the Russian leader to continue to “defend the peace that the world needs so dearly” in a letter expressing his condolences following the Volgograd terrorist attacks late last year, which killed more than 30 people. Although Nicaraguan Vice President Moisés Omar Halleslevens said establishing a base would breach the nation's constitution, a government decision made last November allows Russian military formations, ships and aircraft to visit the country as part of a six-month training program. While the country’s friendliness toward Russia may not necessarily be perceived as a threat to Nicaragua’s Central American neighbors, the U.S. will undoubtedly monitor the growing relationship between both nations.
Ultimately, Russia’s plans to expand its defense capabilities in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua will not only test the United States’ willingness to accept the foreign policies of its sovereign Latin American neighbors, but it may also increase the possibility of future conflict between Moscow and Washington over the Western Hemisphere.
Land Owner
Didn't Dimitry Dudeman mane these counties? Pardon if this has already been mentioned.
Judge
^^^THIS^^^
Home run!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote