Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on July 15, 2001, 07:30:00 PM
-
U.S. Upbeat About Missile Test, Russia Blasts It
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010715/ts/arms_missile_usa_dc_13.html (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010715/ts/arms_missile_usa_dc_13.html)
Strange how some get upset by a strictly "defensive" weapon, yet don't say a word while weapon after weapon of mass destruction are built/maintained daily. Each with our name on one or another.
What do they think, we'd fire ours offensively if we knew that our defense net was 100%? Are they that insane? It's my understanding any country we are allied with now would be under such a net anyway.
I'm for it but think the next mushroom cloud will more than likely come from a suitcase, Ryder truck, etc. than a missile.
[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
the last time they had a missile defense test near here they fired a missile from los angeles area, over 350 miles south of where i live, meant to intercept a missile fired from very near australia.
the missiles were supposed to intersect somewhere over the pacific thousands of miles away. about 20 min after the test my front room lit up with a blue light - i looked out to the south and saw a huge bright blue fireball heading this way. all i could do was watch - i could even hear it it was so close. finally it broke into four smaller fireballs that fell into the ocean sw of san francisco.
i called kron tv like 5 minutes later and they said their phones were swamped with calls reporting the event. they interrupted tv programimg a few minutes later with a quick report promising more info in a few minutes. i left the tv on all night and never heard another word. i even emailed nasa and a local observatory andheard nothing. i dont know what the story was but i always had a suspicion that maybe that test didnt go so well. :)
imo we need to ban all nukes right now - all of em & put a missile defense system in place and take our chances. it is much less risky statistically than having 10s of thousands of missiles active and waiting. if you want to read a good book about disarmament read ''the gift of time'' by jonathon schell. you might be surprised how many people,including old cold warriors share this view.
-
Eagler, I agree with you about "the next mushroom cloud".
But it was an extremely stupid decision to perform this test when the Chairman of the People's Republic of China is in Moscow. For the first time since IIRC 1949. I don't count 1995 50 years of Victory celebrations, it was a visit of honour, nothing else.
They said - 2 warheads!? LOL! They said - telemetry failure!? ROFLMAO!!! YEAH!!! A Confirmed hit!!! 50% probability - it's a real achievement!!!
Muniteman-2?! The very same missile had fallen to Cuba in early-70s after an unsuccessful test-launch. Soviet engineers laughed to tears over that stone-age "hi-tech".
JFYI: USSR performed a first ICBM interception in 1963.
In early-70s, when the ABM treaty was signed, Soviet ABM systems could detect a real warhead in the cloud of false-targets and active jammers, and it was only the first-generation S-225 ABM, that was replaced by a smarter system in early-80s.
I am sorry, but I have to agree with comrade Putin: if US withdrawsfrom ABM treaty - then Russia automaticaly withdraws from all the strategic weapon treaties. We will have only to rearm our ICBMs with separatable warheads. Putin was right: noone will be able to find defence against it in nearest 50-100 years.
Another round of escalation?!
Well. Russia and China do have the guts to face total war, that US fortunately have never seen before. OK. Who'll be the first to press the Red Button?
I understand that the Missile Shield that protects me, here, in Moscow, can intercept no more then 5-10 warheads. It's what my Uncle said, who took part in this Shield development, after scoring 4 victories in Vietnam, and some more in Middle East as a SAM targeting officer. But US have chosen their "missile farm" in North Dakota as a region that will be protected by ABMs.
Maybe it's better to stick to status quo? The world's security is too fragile to play games with it...
The cold war was lost by the Red side 10 years ago.
Please, don't start it over. Don't wake the bear. Especialy the wounded bear.
-
and it all comes down to fear.
Well, at least I hope HT fixes the 38 before the nuke falls :p
-
More like a Dancing Bear at this point. I'll take my chances with your rusting silos, half stripped of blackmarket sold equipment, and un-paid military conscripts.
-
Tac, it IS fear...
I am afraid for the young Russians who don't know what to do when they'll see a Flash...
I have an emergency ration, with first-aid, including anti-radiation drugs (standard Army kit plus some things like dibunol, a cure from radiation burns, from my work) in my always-ready forest backpack, to survive for at least 3 weeks even in winter. Everything packed for 2 persons. When at home - I can always hit the road in 5 minutes, after changing my clothes and picking up some things that better stay in refrigirator.
My Father has almost the same equipment along with his "officer's field bag".
Gas masks still in the closets, but ready for backpacks.
I renewed all the kits, except for the gas-mask cartrige that is too hard to replace now (i mean to get a standard Army upgrade for new chemicals) in 1999, when our trigger-happy NATO friends started a first war in Europe in last 50 years...
Hard to translate this Russian proverb - but god always protects the ones who already prepared themselves.
-
Gaffly, don't you think that the bet is too high?
My Granddad was a commander of a Portable Rocket-Technical base in East Germany, storing atomic and hydrogen warheads for operation-tactical missiles. And I have no doubt that modern Russian missile facilities have the same mentaly-conditioned only-officers personell, that will perform a launch at any cost.
Another stunning experience was talking to a ballistic missile sub officer. They know that the sub will be destroyed by NATO hunters in a matter of seconds after they'll sink the first missile shaft, and probably will not have an opportunity to launch all their deadly load, but the guy was so dedicated that I understood that he'll do his job, commiting an obvious suicide, because it's the only purpose of his life...
Anothr guy I worked with was a driver of an S-300 SAM "special-warhead" truck. In case of a direct enemy attack on a conway he had to get to a special compartment, tie a mine to a warhead container with an ordinary rope, trigger it for 40 seconds, and then try to save his bellybutton from forthcoming toxic dispersion.
I myself was taught to handle the 5B28H (5V28N in Latin) SAM (studied as a 3PK C-200 TDH, or ZRK S-200 TDN officer) with 20 kiloton special warhead and 270x40km range, supposed to be used against B-52 formations crossing a possible-targeting range...
Don't fool yourself. Russia is ready to retaliate. At any cost. And no ABMs will save the people who'll dare to make a "massive launch".
It's our only way to survive.
And we'll have the guts to break this small globe in two if there is no other way.
-
Sorry to post things like that.
I am sure that Americans are a great nation, brave enough too to tell the same things if they'll have their backs against the last wall.
Tried to search AltaVista for "Varjag cruiser" (BTW, built in Philadelphia), but found only a few links to WWIIonline...
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Russia is ready to retaliate. At any cost.
Against what? Where's the threat?
-
Frankly, Boroda, I'm just amazed at Bush. His hawkish posturing is only exceeded by his total disregard for international treaties. It's sad to see a man so out of touch with the world, and even sadder that a significant, yet minor, proportion of the USA follows him blindly for no better reason than political alignment :(
-
Toad, I think that we can count the nations that have hydrogen warheads and the means of delivery by the fingers on one hand.
And the Russian nukes are the only protection against new 1941 now, especially after NATO spreading Eastwards, and fascist states like Latvia at our Western borders.
-
Leonid, unfortunately I can say the same thing about comrade Putin :(
If only 10 years ago someone said that a KGB "officer" can become a president of Russia - it could be considered a stupid sick joke.
That's why I am so scared...
-
Hey Leonid... ever heard of renegotiating a treaty?
Boroda, so say it out plain then.. you think the US is a threat to Russia? You think the US would _start_ a war with Russia?
-
That war never ended, Toad :(
US and Russia are both at war with the rest of the world.
For Russia another small loss equals to a loss of national independance.
For US such a loss will result in an economical collapse that Russia already passed.
What will probably save Russia as an independant state with traditional lifestyle is a military-type dictatorship, and a "disciplinary" reordering of a society, similiar to what Stalin did in the thirties, including political repressions and the dramatic violent changes in political elite.
The more I think about it, the deeper I believe in it :(
For me - there are two ways to survive it. Run away like Miko2d, or just enjoy my guarantied ration as an Academy of science employee.
In this case the West that inspired all this pseudodemocratic changes in last 10 years will have to deal with what I wrote above as a serious, not hypothetic threat.
I hope I am simply paranoid.
-
I guess I'm still not understanding you.
Are you saying you think a military attack by the US on Russia is a real and current threat to your country?
I also fail to see where the US is "at war with the rest of the world".
Nor do I see where that is the case with Russia.
-
Toad, "renegotiating" the 1972 ABM treaty means that Russia (as Putin already stated) will feel free from all the disarmament agreements, and it will start another total escalation of arms race.
But in this case Russia will rely only on nukes, because now it's not capable to wage a large-scale conventional war in Europe and/or Middle East.
-
Yes, given the present state of Russia, should Bush dishonor the treaty and pursue ABM research, then he will be giving Putin a blank check for militarization, specifically nuclear rearmament. Sure, Russia's market economy is presently incapable of such a thing, but who says Russia has to keep trying to be a democratic country? And right now the Russian people are about fed up with the so-called 'democracy' they have experienced for this last decade. Something needs to give there, and soon, which is why Bush's decision is so very badly timed.
The only reason they tried the democratic process was to have a better life. And Clinton wooed Yeltsin with dreams of golden Rubles growing on birch trees. The Clinton administration saw Russia as an excellent opportunity for making money, and nothing more really. They didn't realize that if there was no political process to stand on first, then in the end internal corruption would destroy any accountability for Russia's market. Funny to think that Richard Nixon, of all people, understood this all too well. And now, once again, it is selfish economic interests that steer Bush towards a perilous path - and, potentially, a new Cold War.
-
Ex texas governor and ex KGB officer...Hmmmm..Id say, that anything could happen. US breaking ABM treaty isnt helping this situation at all, Toad, i think you have to agree dont you?
I know theres good reasons to have ABM system working, but i think US and Russia would build that together, respecting eachothers ideology and signed treaties.
And if we take in the fact, that weapons industry is the biggest industry on earth, its 100% sure that those guys have their hands on this. Another cold war would mean $$$$$$ for them and thats the only thing those guys care about. Heck i think if they had the chance, theyd push the red button without hesitation.
-
No ones mentioned our friends the "Red" chinese..
They and the current leadership of Russia are much more "hawkish" than ole Bush. I think GW is just trying to catch up..
Boroda
Your thought process is really scary. Only the backwoods militant types here have gas masks hanging in their kitchens :)
I think you are somewhat paraniod ole boy..
-
Boroda, you still haven't answered the question. You believe that at some time the US is going to initiate a military attack on Russia?
Leonid, the Russians "tried the democratic process was to have a better life" and "now the Russian people are about fed up with the so-called 'democracy' they have experienced for this last decade"? "...there was no political process to stand on first, then in the end internal corruption would destroy any accountability for Russia's market"?
This is all the fault of the Clinton administration? Or did you mean to say the "fault of the USA"? Or are you going to acknowledge that Communism was a failed system, the old Soviet Union was coming apart like a pair of $2 shoes in a rainstorm and they had to do something they obviously weren't prepared to do?
In any event, please do explain how the end of the Communist system in the Soviet Union and the dissatisfaction with corruption and inefficiency can be laid on the doorstep of the USA? I know I'm going to enjoy reading this.
Tuomio, I'm sure you've noticed that in the American political process that not everything goes the President's way. He is not a dictator. There's about 553 members of Congress, almost equally split between Democrats and Republicans, that have a large voice in what the USA actually decides to do. Bush will propose continued development, I'm sure. If Congress approves this proposal, it would hardly be viewed as solely a move by Bush. It would be a decision by 553 representatives of the US citizens, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
For me - there are two ways to survive it. Run away like Miko2d, or just enjoy my guarantied ration as an Academy of science employee.
I will not comment on the rest of ignorant statements in your post - every single one of them completely at odds with reality
But as for "running away" I want to clarify a few points.
1. Last time I checked, not just me, but my whole country - all 60+ million ukrainians run away from your glorious union and guaranteed rations. Of course we must all be fashists, like those Lithuanians and other defectors.
2. I "ran away" before socialism crumbled, before any econmoic troubles in russia were even suspected, before information about the west was freely available in Soviet Union.
Many well-wishing people were pitying me for exposing myself to the dangers of capitalism when I had everything guaranteed.
I left powerfull, stable country where I could have had everything guaranteed in order to live in a country where nobody owed me anything and I had to rely on my own abilities and wit to achieve anything. If US did not accept me, I would have moved to any other communist-free country, rich or poor.
I did run a risk that while my case was processed the international relations would change, I would get denied exit by some commissar and my family would have to stay with "traitor" stamp and never holding a job better then a street sweeper like my friend's family did for a decade.
You want to talk concern about the future? Tell me how many children are you planning to have? What does your system guarantee when it comes to affording as many children as your wife can bear, accessible medical technology, being able to raise and educate them all?
Because most of my friends who stayed in your guaranteed paradise are lucky to have a single child and can hardly afford even that.
So whose future are your concerned about? Have you seen population numbers of your country? Why does it seem to me that it is simply dying out for the lack of procreation?
You have to have a future in order show concern about it and not seem like a liar, but I guess the comissars were always busy arranging somebody else's futures.
I am sure you would want me there with you on your guaranteed ration working for you overlords who declared themselves "democratic" for now.
I bet you would find me usefull back in my T72 bringing back all those lithuanians, ukrainians, poles, muslims and other strays from your great empire, like they had us do it to afganis in the 80s in T-55s.
Come to think of it, those defencive Stinger interceptor missiles proved extremely usefull to afganis then - more usefull then treaties with the peacefull Soviet Union.
You would not know democracy if it bit you on the ass.
Guess what - in my life un USA and my travels in Europe I see much more of your leaders then you do. How come they all have real estate here and send their children here for education, their families for medical treatment? How come they are not happy with their guaranteed rations?
Americans did something to gain their freedom over two hundred years ago and have been working on that ever since.
I did something to gain my freedom dozen years ago.
What did you do?
You think you got your freedon handed down to you by Mikhail Gorbachev, as if a freedom could ever be handed down. Or rather it can be handed down or at leasr relinkuished by unwilling souvereign, but can never be passed that way. As anything else handed down to russian people - whether by it's own rulers or by foreign aid, it got intercepted and appropriated by interpreneural crooks who are before most even realised what they were offered.
We called the feudal system we had "communism" and then "socialism". Now you call semi-feudal system you have "democracy" and decry it's failure.
Arguing ABM treaties and missle shields with you is as pointless as it was discussing Spanish Inheritance treaties with a french serf or a spanish peon in middle ages. You will do as your superiors decide.
I am a man who can think and make a decision. Whether I stayed or left, if it ever came to blows, I would have fought on the side of US rather then Russia. Go ahead, call me a traitor.
miko
-
miko.....welcome to the USA
john
-
Miko, I have to leave work now, and I want to say that I miss the passed-off USSR, half of my family lives in Ukraine (Chernovtsy, Krivoy Rog and Simferopol), but in no way I want anyone to try bringing them back using tanks and missiles.
I think that Yugoslavia was a good example of what can happen.
But I will insist that Latvia is a fascist state. Trials over Soviet partisans, SS "veterans" on parade in Riga with banners etc.
2 Russians were sentenced to 15 years in prison for hanging a Red Flag over local church.
Any public display of Soviet symbols is criminal, so you can go directly to prison after showing your foreign passport (all of them are still USSR) to customs officer...
-
Wasn't the ABM treaty between the USSR and the USA? How is the USA bound with Russia by this treaty?
-
You know, or should, that both of our countries continued to develop the capabilites inherent in the system, Boroda. The difference is that in our country, notice is given that we intend to do it, in yours, it is just done.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
For me - there are two ways to survive it. Run away like Miko2d, or just enjoy my guarantied ration as an Academy of science employee.
Slavery does it to you. Born a slave, you can't even imagine being free. As a matter of fact it is right down scary to take your (and your family's) fate into your own hand, if you have your daily bowl of rice handed to you. I know, I have done it.
Guess what, I've been through some tough times, but never, ever regreted my decision.
Freedom is sweeter than all the guaranteed rations in your cage. Too bad you won't ever know it.
I just can't understand why so many people born in this country do not see their blessings, and are willingly trying to piss it all away, and turn this country into a socialist sewer. And for what? For a fcukcking "guaranteed ration" handed down by the government.
I guess a couple of generations of public "free" education can produce a bunch of komsomoltsev.
-
The second I hear about nukes being launched from any country towards the USA, I'm going to walk outside, smoke a joint and 5 minutes later bend over to kiss my bellybutton good-bye.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
But I will insist that Latvia is a fascist state. Trials over Soviet partisans, SS "veterans" on parade in Riga with banners etc.
2 Russians were sentenced to 15 years in prison for hanging a Red Flag over local church.
Any public display of Soviet symbols is criminal, so you can go directly to prison after showing your foreign passport (all of them are still USSR) to customs officer...
I do not know much about Latvia to have an opinion on that. Or rather, I know quite a lot but not first or even second-hand and it is too sencitive an issue to trust mass media - yours or ours.
If the horrors of communist occupation caused latvians ro recoil into facism, bad for them. History will make them and their children pay for it. I hope their state is democratic enough to allow dissidents to leave. That would be more than soviet communists or nazis (after the first few years) allowed.
You could say "why the ethnic russians should leave their birthplace" and I agree that it is not fair. And I am all for fighting when given no choice or even for common good (provided everyone shares the risk), but dying so that someone else's children could have better future - not logical and usually not what it seems.
At the same time I fail to understand your surprise at the Latvian's hate to everything communist and even russian.
Latvia was invaded, ravaged and occupied by "russian" communists, not german nazis. To them "comissar" sounds like "fuhrer" sounds to you. Germans were their liberators and allies for a while - and SS veterans and "forest brothers" their heroes.
As for soviet partisans, you may make your impression of them according to the soviet movies, but even in Ukraine they committed atrocities against civil population suspected of or forced into cooperation with germans. I have that firsthand. If long pacified ukrainians had tens of thousands of people joining germans or even fighting soviet partisans, german occupants and polish partisans all at once (and continuing the struggle into 1947), why be surprised by freshly conquered Latvians?
Latvians lost lot of people and their way of life to communists, not nazis and almost had their country stolen from under them by forced assimilation. Their anger now is deplorable but not surprising.
A very democratic Germany imposes penalties for displaying nazi symbols. That seems strange to americans, but it's their decision. Why can't Latvia ban the hated communist symbols? I am sure they are very offensive to any latvian who's family lost people to communist repessions.
As for going to jail for having a passport with country's symbology, if they did that they would be violating international laws.
First, they must recognize foreing documents complying with certain standards. Second, if they do not let you into the country, they cannot prosecute you for violating it's laws and you are not in the country yet before your passport is approved. So if they are doing that, they are obviously wrong and Russia can and must act desisively to protect it's citizens.
If Latvia does not like the look of passports Russia gives it's citizens, it should discuss it with the government.
I am sure that there are a lot of prettythangholes in Latvia. They have some advantage though of being a small county - more likely that they will sort themselves out faster then larger ones.
miko
-
Somehow in all of this thread, the politics has covered what seems to me to be the central questions of a "missile shield".
First, if such a thing were possible (it isn't, but we'll get to that later), it would not be a "purely defensive weapon. In fact, there is no such thing as a purely defensive weapon - its just a question of how it is used. A nuclear-capable country with such a working shield would have the ability to destroy any country lacking one with no risk of retaliation. The fact that the US would not do such a thing now is no guarantee that it would NEVER do it. So, other countries are fully justified in being concerned.
The question is moot anyway, because a "missile shield" is pie in the sky. Certainly, systems can be developed that can destroy incoming warheads. And those systems can always be beaten. Even if you develop a system that has a guaranteed 100% reliability (not feasible within the forseeable future), an enemy merely has to launch more units than the system can take out. In reality, such a system would have to have multiple redundancy, requiring two, three or more defensive missiles for each potential warhead (up to 10 or more warheads per attacking missile in a MIRV system). It has to be that way because if even one gets through the results are unacceptably catastrophic. That is the fatal flaw. If it is not 100% successful, its completely worthless.
The other weakness in the concept is that the command and control system for a shield would require millions (perhaps billions) of lines of code that would have to be bug free without ever having been tested in a totally realistic environment (i.e., a real attack). Yes sections of code can be tested, but its a law of software that any non-trivial system must have undiscovered bugs.
So, we now have a situation in which much of the world is getting unhappy with the US unilaterally disregarding a treaty signed in good faith (well - we assume so, anyway), and spending many billions of dollars on a system that cannot be made to do what its intended to do. I'm sure the intentions are good ones, but its madness, nevertheless.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Leonid, the Russians "tried the democratic process was to have a better life" and "now the Russian people are about fed up with the so-called 'democracy' they have experienced for this last decade"? "...there was no political process to stand on first, then in the end internal corruption would destroy any accountability for Russia's market"?
This is all the fault of the Clinton administration? Or did you mean to say the "fault of the USA"? Or are you going to acknowledge that Communism was a failed system, the old Soviet Union was coming apart like a pair of $2 shoes in a rainstorm and they had to do something they obviously weren't prepared to do?
In any event, please do explain how the end of the Communist system in the Soviet Union and the dissatisfaction with corruption and inefficiency can be laid on the doorstep of the USA? I know I'm going to enjoy reading this.
Pull up a chair, and enjoy, Toad. It is the fault of the Clinton Administration. Funny for me to be blaming a Democrat, huh? Fortunately, I'm no blind follower of political parties, unlike some here. The Clinton Administration decided that the best way to help Russia was to get them into the market ASAP, thinking that a country with a free market will automatically slide into a democratic political process. They were very wrong. It's the other way around. You need a sound, democratic political foundation in order to build a free market. Without an established and experienced system of fair and balanced laws, guided by a principle of overall equality, any market will fail due to greed. Richard Nixon actually saw this coming, tried to convince the Clinton Administration otherwise, but it came to nothing.
What should have happened was some sort of arrangement much like the Marshall Plan, whereby Russia's political process would be closely monitored and political advisors from the West would help to build a democratic system that fit Russia. Any financial needs or obligations would be waived/deferred until such time as Russia was deemed stable enough as a political system. The political process was the key.
What amazes me about the Clinton Adminstration was how they approached the whole economic issue with Russia. They basically said, "Well, boys, if you just do like we do, you'll be fine," then promptly began showing Russia how the USA does business. What these economic whiz kids forgot was that economics was as much as product of culture as anything else. Simply put, Russia was not ready for, nor needed, American solutions, but it desperately needed Russian ones.
Hoped you enjoyed that, Toad. And don't worry, I won't ask you a question. You're not too good at answering I've come to realize ;)
[ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: leonid ]
-
So the US should have occupied Russia and taught it Economics? OK, hey it worked for Japan, no?
-
hmm ok, so we forced another superpower to our will and made them go capitalist. Boy talk about the blame game. How bout russia accepts responsibilty for its own actions.
-
you people scare the crap outta me. no wonder the world is so fekd up.
"Bush will propose continued development, I'm sure. If Congress approves this proposal, it would hardly be viewed as solely a move by Bush. It would be a decision by 553 representatives of the US citizens, wouldn't it"
Murphy's Law: When many are the cause of a problem, no one is at fault. In cartman's words: "SWEET!"
Gadfly: And in the proccess, almost, just almost destroyed a culture. The assimilation process continues as we speak. Im not anti-american or anti-anyone (im anti-n1k though), yet ironically, the point im trying to make is best said in the words of a native american tribe "Consider the effect your actions will have on the next ten generations". That's one thing the US does not do, it only considers short term solution (of the 4-year kind..upgradable to 8 years if reelected).
I wish the gdamn aliens just invaded already... gaahrhrrr!
-
Tac, I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm dripping from my words, nee?
-
narf! ;)
-
Yoj
It's a deterent. If the possibility of it working well enough to allow a country to retaliate well enough to eliminate the aggressor, they would be less likely to start something. It's a pretty safe bet the US would NEVER start a nuke fest. Safer bet than most of the other countries with nukes..
leonid
Wow, I agree we you :) We did make the Russian mafia happy though :) Didn't they contribute to the DNC in '96?
tac
Yep, it'd take an "Independence Day" scenerio to unite us all, to set aside our differences and fight for a common good. Sad part is, we'd be back at each others throats within a month of the last alien ship biting the dust. I can see it now, the democrats wanting to start a new entitlement program for the surviving aliens & a tax increase to cover it :)
-
Wow... pretty intense emotions here huh? Nobody is going to "win" the "next" global war... and to be honest I really think the missil defense is more aimed at rogue nations w/nuclear capablity perhaps.
You know what would do the world some damn good...and i mean some real damn good? If the USA and Russia signed a "mutal" defense treaty...hell if Russia joined NATO. I mean to me this would open the doors for all sorts of coorperation.
Its time to see past the cold war crap we grew up with. Its time to tell the old men w/the red buttons to go blow. Its time to make a world alittle more secure for future generations.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Yoj
It's a deterent. If the possibility of it working well enough to allow a country to retaliate well enough to eliminate the aggressor, they would be less likely to start something. It's a pretty safe bet the US would NEVER start a nuke fest. Safer bet than most of the other countries with nukes..
I agree that's the intent. However, if its simply a matter of being able to retaliate, the US can do that now, massively, and there is no sign of us losing that ability in the forseeable future - we don't need a prohibitively expensive and destabilizing new system for that.
As for the US being the agressor and staying safe behind a defensive shield, again I agree that its "a pretty safe bet" that won't happen. In the matter of nuclear explosions, who wants to make bets, even "pretty safe" ones? I know its unlikely, but I'm an American - perhaps my perspective is a tad biased. Not everyone is as trusting of this country and its motives. More importantly, American attitudes towards the rest of the world have shifted over a huge range through our history. There is simply no way to guarantee that we will never again be an agressive, expansionist country. The future is a long time.
Personally, I think its a lot of money going into a project that is a bad idea all round.
Yoj
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]
-
Well, Leonid, you did not disappoint; your record remains intact. There is still apparently no situation or problem for which, by constructing and following a convoluted path of speculation, opinion or outright fantasy, you cannot lay the "blame" on the doorstep of the United States.
I’d love to see the reception that Boroda and his compadres would have prepared for the "political advisors from the West" that "would help to build a democratic system." The Russians have always been so receptive to outsiders, particularly those that arrive with the intent of revamping the Russian political system. :D
Glad you didn’t ask me any questions. It would ruin my reputation here if I actually had to participate in long threads on divisive topics.
Boroda, you think "Yugoslavia is a good example of what could happen"?
So, a centuries old religious/ethnic feud might break out into open warfare with genocidal slaughter of women and children by both sides? This could go on for years before the International community did more than say "tsk, tsk" from the sidelines? Finally, the UN, through a Security Council resolution, could task NATO to implement the military aspects of a negotiated Peace Agreement? Then US would reluctantly join this peacekeeping effort? Later, when one side clearly and violently violated the terms of the Peace Agreement and the killing began again in earnest, the US might join a Nato military action against the aggressors?
You fear this happening to Russia? Why?
Yoj, yes, the history of the human race shows that there are just some technological hurdles that we cannot and never will be able to clear. We’ll never have a man walk on the moon, for instance. The challenges are just too great…oops…
Well, we’ll never get an orbiting telescope up; the challenges are just too great. If we did, having to repair it with a whole revised lens system while it orbited would present challenges that are just too great….oops.
Well, we’ll never be able to build an International Space Station in orbit, the challenges are just too great…oops.
"If it is not 100% successful, its completely worthless."
There’s the flaw in your argument. 99% would make it extremely worthwhile. Even 75% would make it incredibly valuable. 50% would be much better than nothing at all. It would be completely worthless from the POV of those who live in or near the cities that were destroyed, of course. It would be absolutely priceless to those who live in or near the cities that were saved.
There’s a lot of information about this that simply isn’t available yet. Until it is, no intelligent decision can be made as yet.
I’m reminded of a friend of mine that was working on an advanced air-to-air missile for the military. The military wanted a 100% reliable, fool proof missile with a PK of 100% in every situation. His company commented that they could probably get pretty close to what the military was asking for. However, the missile was going to cost about 2X as the target it was meant to shoot down. In other words, we’d be using $60 million missiles to shoot down $30 million airplanes.
This system may prove to be unworkable or economically out of the question. However, it may work and it may turn out to be affordable and relatively cheap when one considers the cost of ignoring the threat. That’s what research does in the end; it answer questions like these.
Tac, life’s not so easy when you can’t just lay the blame on one bogeyman, is it? Should be an interesting debate, with the House and Senate so closely split.
Don’t be scared; we’ve built a pretty nice country using this system for the last 200+ years. Oh, BTW, the aliens are already here (wonder why they came with such a scary system). The "Bush bogeyman" is proposing giving 3 million of them residency. Of course, that will have to go through Congress too. :D
-
remember that MAD work only if you assume a rational attacker. Give the nuke to Bin Ladin and see whether he cares about the consenquences. I'm not even sure whether chicomms would think twice. In cases like this, you just have to take it on a chin, downtown DC or out in space, your choice... (difficult choice come to think of it), without a possibility to retaliate.
On the other hand, it is a valid argument that this kind of defense it totally ineffective against the most probable form of attack, a suitcase nuke.
-
Unilaterally disregarding? Dishonor the treaty? Total disregard for international treaties?
Do a little research guys...BEFORE you hurl the invective. ;)
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html (http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html)
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS
Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
Article XV
1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."
Dishonor? Disregard? LOL. It's IN the treaty, approved by both sides. Stow the inflammatory, ill-informed rhetoric.
Common sense, without the hysteria, calls for renegotiation and possibly even cooperation on this project.
Don't believe me... ask Yakovenko!
(CNN) "Alexander Yakovenko, spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry said Russia is open "for an early and substantive dialogue with the U.S. on the START [treaty] and ABM problems" and other strategic issues on the basis of understandings reached by the Russian and U.S. presidents at their recent meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia."
US intent?
(CNN) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a small group of reporters in his Pentagon office Wednesday the U.S. will "sit down with the Russians in a way that's rational, and professional, and we don't intend to violate the treaty."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a small group of reporters in his Pentagon office Wednesday the U.S. will "sit down with the Russians in a way that's rational, and professional, and we don't intend to violate the treaty.
Rumsfeld expressed confidence that an agreement will be worked out with Russia before then, but said if all efforts at reaching an understanding fail, the United States always has the option of opting out under the terms of the treaty, which would abrogate, but not violate the treaty.
This will eventually be settled in a mutually agreeable fashion. In the meantime, research hurts no one and it's quite a different matter than deployment.
Breathe deep...relax.
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Miko, one little question: how many Jews survived nazi occupation in Latvia?
Only 18. Eighteen.
Keep telling fairy tales about "good nazies". Remeber that joke - good coffins for good ones, bad coffins for bad ones.
As for Ukrainian "partizans" - is "OYH" ("OUN") wat you mean? Or the famous Stepan Bendera's "freedom fighters"?
I bet you remember the date when evil Russians, armed with babooshkas, balalaikas and samovars occupied poor Ukraine.
IMO the fall of USSR was good only for local political elites, the same commie functioners we both hate.
You hide your e-mail, if you'll send it to me I'll give you a link to a recent discussion about national politics where I tried to state my point of view. Unfortunately that page contains links that I can't post here.
Your remark about Afghanistan is Stingers is extremely stupid. Look at what our Great American Democracy reached helping Freedom Fighters. Go rent a copy of Rambo-3 and watch it 10 times.
My provocation really hit you :)
BTW: another misunderstanding occured. Many people WILL prefer guaranteed rations. But if it will come that far (and I really don't see another end of all the crap going on here) - I'll prefer to "run away" too.
So far I didn't see any reasons for doing so.
You emigrated whith the first opportunity, because your career in USSR could be earning 120r monthly and sitting holes in your pants in some NII or KB forever.
You are maybe 10 years older then me. At that time I was still a student. When life became bearable in maybe 1993, I already had good job and didn't need anything else.
Here is a song for you:
http://www.zvuki.ru/T/P/271/28m/5 (http://www.zvuki.ru/T/P/271/28m/5)
To define myself completely: my Mother emigrated to Australia in 1995, at the age of 50.
;)
Now - back to ABMs.
AFAIK US is going to deploy 110 ABMS.
SAMs are usually fired in salvos of two, or three in case of a special-importance target. I don't count some miracles, like that 2 F-14s shot down by one salvo from Lybian S-200 over Line of Death in 1986. Usually the hit possibility is around 50%. 1/3 or even smaller hit possibility is considered pretty high for a try.
So - let's assume that 110 ABMs will intercept 55 warheads. Let's forget about targeting channel overloads, fake targets, active jammers that accompany warheads etc.
55 warheads is only 5 modern ICBMs.
I already said that the only working "missile shield" in the world is capable to intercept about 10 warheads. It's only purpose is to protect Moscow from accidental launch. It can be useful even in case of a massive launch, because ICBM's typical target is an enemy's ICBM launch site, and AFAIK our nearest silos are 400km from Moscow.
So - we see that the "missile shield" is useless against a massive launch.
If US indeed breakes the ABM treaty - Putin's hands will be free to deploy MIRVs again, and therefore the world security system will be threatened again.
And the last thought: any massive launch by any country will result in massive launches from other ICBM owners. End of planet Earth.
Now please someone explain me what is the purpose of NMD system. If US will step out of the 1972 treaty this year - Russia will re-equip ICBMs with MIRVs in a matter of months, if not weeks. America will face the threat again years before their ABMs will be ready for production.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yoj, yes, the history of the human race shows that there are just some technological hurdles that we cannot and never will be able to clear. We’ll never have a man walk on the moon, for instance. The challenges are just too great…oops… < snip >
"If it is not 100% successful, its completely worthless."
There’s the flaw in your argument. 99% would make it extremely worthwhile. Even 75% would make it incredibly valuable. 50% would be much better than nothing at all. It would be completely worthless from the POV of those who live in or near the cities that were destroyed, of course. It would be absolutely priceless to those who live in or near the cities that were saved.
Ah friend Toad - putting intentions into my words, eh? Five yard penalty and loss of down!
I explicitly said that the technology could be made to work. I also said that the technology can be defeated, because ANY technology can be defeated. You talk about saving some cities, yet if a system is, say, 75% effective, that does not mean you save 75% of your cities - it means a high probability that 25% of the attacking missiles will get through to every target, and ONE is enough. Without 100% reliability, there is a measurable chance of 100% destruction.
A shield (as currently proposed) could only reliably protect against a small limited nuclear missile attack - a determined opponent with a large force can always build to overwhelm by numbers (assuming they can never produce a technology to spoof your defensive system). And any small country (rogue state) making such an attack would face total obliteration. As a number of people have pointed out, an attack from rogue state would most likely NOT come by missile.
Research will continue - it always does, and its important that it does. However, true strength comes from pure research (in which we learn) not from an expensive and highly specific engineering project (which simply applies and refines what is already known). The money would be much better spent backing scientific research, and the world would have one less controversy if they just packed it in on this shield thing.
- Yoj
-
Yoj, I'll take the five yards, but loss of down is a bit harsh. ;)
Again, there's a counter to your argument. Even if 25% of the missiles get through, it doesn't mean all cities would be destroyed. There is a measurable chance of 100% destruction but an equally measurable chance of much less destruction. Just depends on which subsets get nailed, right? For example, if they wipe out all the warheads aimed at LA, LA survives. Whoops... maybe this isn't a good idea. :)
All that is just arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin however. You wouldn't know how it played out until it played out.
Right now, it's only research and experimentation. (I disagree with you on the "only pure research" aspect. I think we learn a lot from the experimentation phase, particularly the failures. Failures lead to improvements that can be cross-utilised later.) It's not anywhere near a deployment decision, let alone a deployment stage. I haven't made up my mind whether I'd support deployment or not. Too much research left to do.
The time will come when Congress will have to decide. I'll speak my piece to them at that time.
Until then, I'm happy to toss my tax penny into the pool to fund the research and experimentation. They will learn things from this that will be used in other beneficial areas. Beats heck out of subsidizing the Congressional Barber Shop.
-
Europe hates this idea - without European cooperation, it will never be implemented. The system relies on a missile tracking station about 80 miles from where I am sitting, writing these words. There is alot of cross-party opposition to the idea, backed up by public support.
As for Russia - it was a mess in 1990 when I was last there. I hope things have improved alot, but from what I read it has not.
Tearing up missile treaties with poverty-stricken nations still smarting from defeat doesn't make sense. Even if the cause is considered just.
I reckon alot of Russians have already pulled out the rose-tinted spectacles and are turning their attention to the past. And that, to me, is a very scary thing.
-
"Tearing up missile treaties with poverty-stricken nations ..."
See above. IF it comes to that, it's exercising a mutually pre-approved option to withdraw. Let's not try to emotionally "spin" it please.
Be pretty funny if Russia agreed to join in and lend its expertise to the project after the mutual discussions wouldn't it? Stranger things have happened.
Take a deep breath. It isn't being deployed. It's being researched and validated. I doubt all the world's angst will stop that portion.
Deployment passing the Congress is another matter entirely. So save your strength until it gets that far. :)
-
Knowing the legalese of the treaty are all well and good, but by focusing on that is like not seeing the forest for the trees. This treaty is about nuclear weapons, the most destructive weapons mankind can pat itself on the back, and it was signed by the two nations with the most of this form of weaponry. Just because the Soviet Union has gone, and Russia stands in its place is no reason to suddenly consider this treaty nonbinding. The fact remains that Russia and the USA are still the holders of the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Sticking to details and legalese wording will only bring danger on an international scale. Bush has one concern: get this ABM system out ASAP. He doesn't care what Europe thinks, nor the Russians, and he will do whatever it takes to see it through. He is that narrow-minded as his actions have shown to date. I have no idea why he is so obsessed with an ABM system now. 'Rogue States' my ass, if a terrorist group truly wants to wreak havoc on the USA, all they need to do is smuggle in some of the 'glowing' stuff, and make a bomb in country, then just leave it in a van in some parking lot. No ABM system in the world could stop that. However, Bush has shown almost a transparent loyalty for big business, and the defense industry. Hence, my only conclusion is the sudden ABM obsession is like iEN trying some marketing hocus-pocus to generate badly needed cash flow. And the truly disturbing thing is Bush seems to think the USA and the world are two different things.
And regarding Boroda. If you think he is coming off as too doom & gloom, I can tell you he's actually one of the nicest guys, and actually doesn't hold half the anger many Russians do over this issue. Most Russians are very pissed at this most recent development of Bush's.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
(I disagree with you on the "only pure research" aspect. I think we learn a lot from the experimentation phase, particularly the failures. Failures lead to improvements that can be cross-utilised later.)
Well sure, we do learn a lot - but only about this particular project. We learn a few things that can apply to other projects - the more similar they are, the more that applies. However, its the pure research that opens the bug doors. An example - the Manhattan Project as an engineering exercise. Some new things, like Teflon, came out of it. But it was the years of theoretical and experimental physics that came before that made an A-bomb possible. Once the basic knowledge was gained and confirmed, the engineers made it work practically. It was a tremendous feat, but not much new was learned from the engineering.
Anyway, I'd rather have my defense dollar go into better pay, training and equipment for our soldiers, or some of the more practical concepts. All this initiative does is drain resources from better things. Like having our congressmen display tonsorial splendor :)
- Yoj
-
All this bruhaha 'bout a missle defence system that has only a 50% success rate and the positive results are probably suspect also...nothin' but a lot of pork IMO!
Lars
-
what about the missle defense system ?
The bottom line is the bottom line. it is going to cost way more than estimated (wepons systems always do) and the current estimate is out of line with our budjet now.
Krush
-
The whole thing is really rather silly... it won't be able to protect us, except from a certain kind of attack... of which none of the countries we are currently worried about have the ability to launch. Would a rogue nation launch a ballistic missile into space when it would just put one on a fishing boat and sneak on over here? Hi-tech solutions(not our hitech of course) won't solve all of our problems. And why are we even considering this when it is a violation of various treaties? Some times I really wonder about our leaders. Hopefully the international community will excuse their ignorance. Nothing but a bunch of rich people trying to give themselves a false sense of security with a HUGE waste of money.
-
Or perhaps, a bunch of rich people trying to get richer? (Conspiracy theories anyone?) :)
- Yoj
-
libyans shot down 2 f14s? thats news to me. What world are you living in boroda?
-
maybe the White House knows of advances by Iran, Iraq, (put your 3rd world arse backwards country here) into thier development of such a delivery system that isn't on the nightly news.
But if I had a nuke homing in on my family, I'll take a 50/50 chance over a Zero chance of destroying such a threat anyday.
I think the system is designd as advertised. An attack from a rogue nation, with a limited launch capability. Or an accidental launch of a single rocket by some "patriotic" nutcase. Not against Russia or any other country nutty enough to launch an aggressive multiple missile attack.
And hey, if it kicks up the economy via new jobs, increased production, etc.. that'd just be a great side effect. Heck if the money isn't spent here, it'd just be blown somewhere else, not sent to salaries of our military or police which I hope everyone would agree are pathetically low.
-
In 'normal circumstances' Russia would not launch a MAD (how apt) offensive against the US and her allies. But 'normal circumstances' by their very definition must have a flip-side.
How about a totalitarian coup (in whatever flavour you like) blacks out all news services, expels foreign diplomats and starts to turn up the heat, perhaps inventing some non-existent crisis which hinges on paranoia over a US attack. How will the average Russian know the truth? What stops the arsenal being used even in a limited way?
It is there. It exists. It if functional. It can be used. There are treaties to control, limit and de-activate it. Yet the US wants to turn its back on all that and the foundation it provides, all for some barely functional system with little promise. Not to mention the political motivation behind it.
Why bother?
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Dowding
Your scenario can happen with or without our "shield" in place. Treaty or no treaty we have the ability to wipe ourselves from the face of the earth at anytime. Some make it sound like the world is a safe place now and this missile defense will make it unsafe. How absurd!
-
"Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty..."
Yeah, THERE'S some "legalese" mumbo-jumbo that the average guy simply can't understand. :rolleyes:
Remember, BOTH countries wrote, approved and signed that part.
Leonid, if it was Russia pulling out of this treaty you'd defend it as their sovereign right and quote the treaty as proof. Then you'd blame the USA for forcing them to withdraw. :)
It just so happens that this TIME it's your favorite premier hobgoblin that's making the move. I can understand that you can't pass the chance to snipe at Bush, however. :)
Tell me this Leonid: The US and Russia still have global nuke capability. Which of the two do you think are more likely to actually USE one FIRST? Say in the next 15 years? (Go ahead and say the USA... I'd love to see you justify that flight of fancy!)
Now we won't count the nukes that have "slipped out" of Russia to Arab and other nations as "Russian". After all, can't hold them responsible for selling nukes to any bozo with a suitcase full of cash, now can we? Wouldn't be fair.
I'd say the US probability is essentially NIL. I'd put the Russian probability at the same level, perhaps a smidge less than that due to the instability generated by their persistent problems in coming to grips with the total failure of their previous system.
BOTH of these powers have a ~55 year history of handling the USE of nukes with reason and responsibility. That is to say, NEITHER side has used a nuke offensively or defensively in ~55 years.
The US and the Russians aren't the problem. Any sane, unbiased person knows the US has a strict policy of "no first use". I believe the Russians see the value of that policy as well and will also adhere to it.
This treaty IS outdated. The US nuke arsenal isn't a threat to the Russians. I'd like to think their's isn't to us.
If the Russians are pissed, I suggest they be pissed at their own leadership and fellow countrymen. They're the ones that have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars of grants, gifts, aid, IMF funds and loans from the various nations of the world to be stolen from the intended recipients or wasted without positive result. Yeah, that Bush, HE'S the real problem. LOL. Sorry, I forgot... that was all the Clinton Administrations fault. LOL again. Wait... maybe it was Kennedy with that "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech! No... had to be Reagan with the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Yah, THAT'S where it all STARTED! That sentence made the PERFECT system of government collapse. Just ask Mietla and Miko; I'm sure they'll agree.
But hey, it's way easier to get all worked up about a presently non-existent ABM system that will have absolutely NO EFFECT on the status of "World Peace and Security".
Never gets used if a nuke missile isn't fired, now does it? If a nuke missile gets fired "World Peace and Security" are already non-existent anyway aren't they?
:D
[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Before all of your shorts are irretrievably wadded up, don't forget that the US and Russian are going to sit down and NEGOTIATE.
"Alexander Yakovenko, spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry said Russia is open "for an early and substantive dialogue with the U.S. on the START [treaty] and ABM problems" and other strategic issues on the basis of understandings reached by the Russian and U.S. presidents at their recent meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia."
They'll work it out.
The world isn't going to end over this minor issue.
It'll be something like whether or not Miller Lite is "less filling" or "tastes great" that starts the "Final Conflict".
-
Yep Toad
They'll "work it out"
How much do you think it'll cost us?? How many more million/billions of our hard earn money will be handed over in "aid" so that they,probably China and a few other "world leaders" with their hands out finally see the light.....greasing the old palms, thats how it'll finally be negotiated, like most things.
-
Unfortunatly, the bigest nuclear threat isn't from any missle launched systems. It is the terrorist that, for a few thousand dollars, has bought a small device that will be easly smuggled into the his target country and detonated without any warning. I would hope that the Bush administration and his successors will address this real problem like they have with their "Star Wars Fantasy" hardware. Which, IMO will do nothing to reduce the real danger of small well equipped terrorist organizations.
-
Well, Lars, do tell how they are going to even start to go about that.
This is a country with borders so huge and unguarded that bales of contraband MJ enter by land, sea and air every single day.
We're open to this threat and always will be. The best defense in this area is intelligence work. That method will always be "hit and miss"; even more so than a defensive missile or airborne laser.
-
If Bush is so sincere about sitting down and talking about renegotiating why in the world is he carrying on these ABM tests before these talks? The timing of such a public action indicates either an ignorance in diplomatic skills, or an assumption that diplomacy serves no purpose. In either case, this will only harm his credibility as an international leader.
-
Leonid, you'd b*tch if they hung ya with a new rope! :)
Recall that he's been in office about 6 months, that this last test was almost certainly scheduled before that under <ahem> a previous administration.
Recall that he JUST met with Putin and set up this negotiation straight away.
Then there's the other side of the coin. Maybe after a successful test you are negotiating from a better position.
If one side wants you NOT to produce such a system and you are not averse to that idea in exchange for something you might want yourself, are you not in a better negotiating position if the system has been shown to work, albeit in a limited test?
It isn't going to harm his credibility. According to you he has none already. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
We're open to this threat and always will be. The best defense in this area is intelligence work. That method will always be "hit and miss"; even more so than a defensive missile or airborne laser.
The millions and millions of dollars spent on this technology should be shared with the intellengence agencys..that is one way to combat it. How that money is spent is the key. Do we want the US's intellegence agencys to play by the rules when investigating known terrorist groups and not be effective or should they be given free reign to root out all possible sources of nuclear devices and materials that would likely be used by a terrorist group.
Tough questions and the answers will be even tougher. You can't always wear a white hat when dealing with those type of fanatics.
In the meen time I feel we should address all possible delivery systems 'cause if we make one delivery system obsolete then the aggressors will just choose other meens of delivery.
-
I think people are hitting on an important fact... and that is, is this the best use of billions and billions of dollars? Is there another way we could spend this money that benefits us more or makes us more secure? Without a doubt. What is most amusing to me is that it won't even accomplish what it is supposed to do. It will not make us immune to attacks... be they by missiles or otherwise. It WILL piss off other countries. We don't need a billion $$$ false blanket of security.
-
Looks to me that Leonid is right about Bush's support for military-industrial comlex.
Toad, yes, Bush met Putin and all that blah blah about negotiations, but on the next day Putin declared that if US withdraws from 1972 treaty - Russia will deploy MIRVs again. It frightens me.
Who will probably launch the first massive nuke attack? Some hints: "Attack will start in 5 minutes", was it a Russian president who said it? USSR declared that we'll never use nukes first, it was in 1983. Did US join? Nope. Who was the first to suspend nuclear tests?
American government is traditionaly unpredictaple, and usualy lacks any kind of common sence in foreign politics decisions. Can anyone tell me a sane reason for Yugoslavian war in 1999? What did it end up with?
I understand Europeans who are against NMD program too. Remember US middle-range missiles deployment in Europe in 1983? Looks like the same thing now: who cares about Yurop, and who the hell are that "loosers who's bellybutton we saved in WWII" to tell us what we, Americans should do!?
I think that if Bush will stop abusing other nations opinions like ABM test when Chairman of PRC was in Moscow, and will suspend all tests and programms for true international negotiations, with all nuclear countries, maybe even including India and Pakistan at the round table - the truely international programm can appear. Long range detection radar sites, sattelites and other control facilities worldwide in one network, under international control to prevent sabotage, several ABM models for different ranges and purposes, produced by Russians and Americans, etc.
Now American administration acts as if it needs to unite the rest of the world against the US. Confirms the world-wide stereotype of Americans unable to be polite and respect others. Sad.
-
Damn
Where's Clinton when you need him? We should follow his example and SELL our military secrets for political contributions. Seems both Russia and China were happy then. Oh yeah, and the world was a safer place when our leader's first concern was his latest publicity poll and his donut. Usually not in that order.
I say let them both pound sand. They sure as hell don't consult us at every turn, why should we? America has to stand up for herself and do what is best for it's future and her allies. It's their choice, join us or not, shouldn't sway our course of action.
-
Putin says he will deploy MIRVs again and agrees to hold negotiations to work on "an early and substantive dialogue with the U.S. on the START [treaty] and ABM problems".
So you are saying that there is really no intent on Russia's part to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement at these talks? Sham negotiations?
Putting MIRVs back on missiles now is more dangerous now than it was back when your much larger MIRV-equipped rocket forces were fully mission ready before the collapse of Communism? Because Russia is more likely to use them now or what?
The idea that the US is the destabilizing force in World Peace is simply laughable. You know it too. Do a little thinking.
What does the US have to gain by initiating a nuclear exchange? The US isn't a country with a collapsed economy, dependent on food handouts from other nations. The US isn't a country with a paranoid fear of invasion by its geographic neighbors. The US isn't the country conducting a brutal civil war against one of its own republics.
The US most likely is the country that gives the most aid overall to multiple nations in distress around the globe. The US is the country with the longest history of aiding both its former allies AND adversaries. We're the destabilizers? :rolleyes:
The "Yugoslavian War"? It seems to have essentially ended the mass slaughter in the area doesn't it? At least for now.
Refresh your memory:
http://www.ihf-hr.org/ar97bos.htm (http://www.ihf-hr.org/ar97bos.htm)
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
ANNUAL REPORT 1997
"Open military confrontation in Bosnia-Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement on 14 December 1995. The conflict had resulted in more than 160,000 deaths, and 2.5 million refugees and displaced persons."
But the Dayton Peace Agreement didn't really end it, did it?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/950731/950731.bosnia.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/950731/950731.bosnia.html)
TIME Magazine
July 31, 1995 Volume 146, No. 5
"BOMBS AND BLUSTER
With another "safe" area at risk, the allies threaten to strike the Serbs and say they mean it this time
"The catalyst for the London conference was the brutal Serb assault on the eastern enclave of Srebrenica two weeks ago. The Serbs made captives of men and boys of military age and, in a new wave of "ethnic cleansing," sent the rest of the town's 42,000 Muslims fleeing to government lines. U.N. officials collecting the testimony of refugees are convinced that the Serbs committed appalling acts of rape and murder.
The Serbs then moved on Zepa, and Mladic staged a surrender ceremony with some Bosnian civilians at an abandoned U.N. observation post outside town.
As the Serbs attacked Zepa and then Gorazde, French President Jacques Chirac proposed a counteroffensive, or at least a reinforcement of Gorazde, with French troops to fly in aboard American helicopters...
Secretary of Defense William Perry and John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, convinced Clinton that Chirac's proposal was unacceptable, an idea prompted more by the French sense of honor than by a serious assessment of the situation in Bosnia. "Shali's ultimate argument," says a senior White House official, "was that you would have to have an air campaign to get the troops into Gorazde anyway, so why not try an air campaign first?"
Sane reason? How about to stop the mass rape and murder of civilians and the "ethnic cleansing" of the entire area? That "ethnic cleansing" send any shivers down your spine?
Maybe not.
Perhaps the US/Russia upcoming negotiations are the beginnings of the "true international negotiations"? Have to start somewhere, right? The US and Russian in agreement would be a good foundation for International talks, wouldn't it?
-
Toad, why the hell all the "human rights watchers" forget about another side of Helsinki agreements, the one about the borders in Europe?
And why the hell does US feel right to interfere into anyone's internal affairs!?
Toad, links to that pro-wetern bastars who play the same sick games to cover genocide of Serbs make me sick.
Even Croats admit the facts of genocide in Srbska Krajna now.
Forget about human rights. If I hear "human rights in Western media - I already know that someone fed from Washington plays dirty political games. That very paragraph was added to Helsinky agreements ONLY to have another instrument of pressure against USSR.
And don't tell me about american assistance. Do you play preferance? Then you have to know what american assistance means there.
Go on, hire another bunch of collaborators who'll sale what America wants for almost nothing. Or use "assistance" to kill competing industries or agriculture.
Look at the history: US always plays on wars and disasters, they always benefit from such things.
What was the US before WWI? A provincial undeveloped country compared to Russian Empire. Then WWI starts, and America gets great profits from selling arms and goods, joins the war at the end and then occupies Northern Russia and Far East, stealing Russian gold.
In WWII US was the only coutry that could say it won the war. Minimal losses, ridiculous "campaign" in the Pacific and mass bombings to prevent Soviets from taking German industry intact.
One of the soviet aces, Arkhipenko, said that he talked to a B-17 crew that landed in Soviet territory. They had whole regions marked on their maps as industrial objects that they couldn't bomb because there was American capital invested. BTW, I do believe him, and want to hear your opinion - looks like you have answers ready for all my quastions ;)
Toad, countries that invest in wars and consider only wars as instruments for profit are most dangerous for international peace and stability.
Sorry, you really made me angry by mentioning all that crap about Bosnia. Why not to look at the Serbian sources? Religious/cultural prejudice?
-
Boroda
It's the mind set out of Russia like yours that makes me think Patton was right at the end of WW2. Yep we bombed German industry just so you couldn't use them. Nothing to do with slowing the GE war machine.
Is everyone over there as paraniod as you?
-
Eagler, what industrial objects were desroyed in Dresden?
Was the German war machine realy slown down by bombings? Maybe it was, but German chemical industry still produced perfumes in 1944...
Have you read "Slaughterhouse Five"?
As for Patton - after reading Bradley's memoirs I made a conclusion that he was hmmm... not very smart.
There is a legend that in 1945 Soviet marshalls came to Stalin with the proposal to attack "allies", with all plans attached. Stalin refused...
-
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
There is a legend that in 1945 Soviet marshalls came to Stalin with the proposal to attack "allies", with all plans attached. Stalin refused...
One of Stalins few bright moments :)
But then again, where would you be with 46 years of American/European backed capitalism under your country's belt? I'd imagine alittle more comfortable than you are now :)
-
Air strikes achieved new contracts for US weapon production companies and Euro currency going down 30%.
Then (the side that noone cares for) it ended in another genocide of Serbs and spreading terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism over Balcans. KFOR does nothing as a peacekeeping force, or even helps Albanian gangs.
Now the same scenario develops in Macedonia. Exactly the same, with the same Solana now telling Macedonians not to abuse poor peacefull Albanians, who just want Macedonians to leave their houses and belongings and run away, and promises another NATO force to make the process peacefull and avoid casualities.
Someone "up there" has his share in Albanian heroin business in Europe.
-
Boroda,
Last post first. DRESDEN was bombed by the Allies as a result of a request by the Soviet Union. Go look it up. Start with the ARGONAUT Conferences of January-February 1945. However, I'm sure the Stalin machine long ago manufactured an "amazing alternative history" to deny the truth here as well.
..as for the rest.
160,000 is the total casualties on BOTH sides. There's been plenty of pointless killing on BOTH sides.
You asked what the air war achieved. Pretty simple. It's been essentially quiet ever since, hasn't it? The slaughter has ended.
Unfortuntely for the Serbs, they were the ones on the offensive and doing the slaughtering when action was finally taken. Too bad for them, eh? No one denies their were atrocities and pointless killing on the other side as well.
But FOR NOW the slaughter has stopped. That's what the air war achieved.
I'll also remind you that the US citizen was very reluctant to even send troops to the region.
In a televised speech in late November or December of 1995 Clinton pleaded that vital U.S. interests and the cause of peace were at stake. USA Today, CNN and Gallup conducted a poll of 632 adults immediately after the speech. When asked "Does sending troops protect U.S. interests?" 52 percent answered "No."
The House of Representatives voted 243 to 171 on Nov. 17, 1995 to prevent money from
being spent to send U.S. peacekeeping troops to Bosnia.
Continued polling?
July 25, 1997 "Gallup polls have asked about the U.S. troop presence in Bosnia since December of 1995, and approval for the deployment has consistently hovered at about 40%. In the most recent poll, 39% of Americans approve, compared with 53% who disapprove."
Hard to make a case that the US was eager to be involved in that mess.
Interfere in anyone's internal affairs?
Better ask the UN, I think. That's the organization that started the Yugoslavian intervention, by issuing UN Security Council Resolution 1031.
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u951215a.htm (http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u951215a.htm)
Your attempts to pin this all on the US are pretty amusing. We didn't want in on this; we wanted to stay as far away from it as possible.
However, as Rumsfeld recently said: "It is a lot easier and cheaper for people to use American military than it is to take the tougher steps of seeing that the civil order side is developed and that there is an opportunity for the military to step away."
BTW, which nation took the lead in getting both sides to sign the Dayton accords? Who was that again?
You insult with your clear, totally unsubstantiated bias.
We always benefit from wars and disasters?
Lord, you do have it bad, don't you? Next you'll be telling us that the US started WW1 and WW2 as a business opportunity! You're getting pretty pathetic now, Boroda.
As far as your hearsay evidence on bombing in Europe: I'll wager I've talked to far more WW2 US military than ANYONE you've met. I just talked with a B-17 Navigator at the 8th AF museum in Savannah last week for example. Absolutely no mention of the crap you're spewing. My father-in-law was a B-17 tailgunner; absolutely no mention of the crap you're spewing. Those are two of probably DOZENS of people who "were there" that I've talked to.
I see you choose not to discuss your own country's instability that has your entire nation teetering on the political abyss once again.
You think the US is a threat to World Peace? LO-F-L! The disaster-in-the-making that has existed since 1917 may not yet have reached its full potential. Perhaps you WILL finally be able to destroy the entire world instead of just your own homeland and that of your immediate neighbors. What an achievement, eh?
But go ahead an place the blame on someone else. It can't be your recent ancestors and present leadership that has so well and truly screwed what should be a great and vibrant land.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
One of Stalins few bright moments :)
But then again, where would you be with 46 years of American/European backed capitalism under your country's belt? I'd imagine alittle more comfortable than you are now :)
No legend but true: Churchill wanted assessment plans drawn up right at war's end for an attack on the Soviet Union. His General Staff drew one up, stating such a conflict would be hopelessy bogged down with little hope of any real western Allied gains. Think the plan was called Operation Unthinkable. No joke. Churchill finally woke up from his red wet dream, and dropped it.
-
Well Boroda....that last post seems to sum it up for me....I believe I detect some bitterness, which explains alot of what you have posted.
Oh yeah...gestures....let's sign an agreement with a country which openly states it's intention to destroy the U.S., aligning itself militarily against the U.S..
We should all just agree on one thing...we will never solve all of the problems we face nor will we all get along either...hopefully we will just survive each others fears.
Rude
Capitalist Pig on a Mission to Destroy the Rest of the World
-
Toad, you are misinformed.
First, there were only around 300 casualities (in fact more Serbs then Albanians) in Kosvo conflict when bombing started. Facing a problem similiar to Chechnya Serbs were extremely human to terrorists and drug-dealers. What you call "ethnic cleansings" started after the bombings started. Noone could stop people who were bombed because of Albanians. Nice try - starting a mess intending to stop it.
Then, and it seemsto me that you simply don't have it in the news: after KFOR entered Kosovo - it protects Albanians and pays absolutely no attention to hundreeds of thousands of Serbian refugees, 1000 years Orthodox curches and monasterys being destroyed by Albanians etc. What is going on there now is almost the same that happened in Chechnya, with some national features like throwing grenades at Serbian children and whomen from car windows.
Damn, NATO even refused to give Russian KFOR troops a special region in Kosovo!
UN, yes, UN. UN NEVER approved the bombings. According to the procedure such decisions are to pass Security Council. But this decision could never pass it, because Russia and China will veto it. So - noone stirred and Russia had to prepare another proposal: to stop bombings! And it was immediately vetoed by US and UK! You call it a UN decision!?
About the US bomber maps: I read it in a book by a very respectable man, 2 times Hero of the Soviet Union, who scored more kills then any "allied" ace. When I'll get the book back (in a day or two, i think) I'll post a location and dates. BTW, he's still alive and lives in Moscow. In 2000, when the book was published, he was still working. There is a small chance to talk to him... But now I "sell it for the same price I bought it". And I still can imagine that such maps could exist. BTW, since when a tailgunner had his own copy of flight maps with routes and targets marked? Sorry, not in any way I want to offend a War veteran.
Anyway - thanks for your information, it's very valuable to me.
Stalin asking to bomb Dresden, that was supposed to be in Soviet occupation zone - it's something interesting and new :)
As for destroying the world - you miss something, we ARE able to do it. But USSR never ever used nukes in wars, unlike the US.
Russia's current official military doctrine is a "preventing nuclear strike". It's a very sad fact, but it's a fact. US did won a cold war, and benefits from it, playing games with bombs wherever they want, but instead of a stalemate with possible conventional war in case of a serious conflict they now face an opponent that has nothing to lose. In this conditions it's extremely unsafe to show ignorance like the latest ABM test.
And if the things will get really hot - I have no doubt that US will use nukes first, because it's the only chance for them to win a conflict.
Some other facts that some people in this thread may misunderstand:
1) Russia is a successor of the USSR. We respect all treaties signed by USSR, as well as paying all debts of the USSR and Russian Empire.
2) I do not support any kind of nuclear escalation. I do not support some aspects of current Russian foreign politics. I do not like current Russian administration and all the regimes that changed in Russia in the last 100 years.
3) I said many times that in RL I am not such anti-American, and enjoy the fact that we can discuss such things with each other.
4) I am NOT a communist. For Miko: I adore people who prefered not tear away commissar's stars from the sleeves of their uniforms, sentencing themselves to a horrible death in the hands of nazies.
-
Toad dont bother, skippy wont ever get it, he is so brain washed with absolute baseless facts, that it is impossible to talk to him. I have no idea why comrade leonid is in the U.S. if ya dislike it, leave bro. Still comrade boroda what about the f14s in 1986?
-
Boroda, I'm misinformed? You grew up in a country that made misinforming its own populace an artform. You guys wrote the book on a "Free Press" too I bet. :)
So you are going to post with a straight face that from 1992, when the Bosnian Serbs, assisted by the Federal Army of Serbia, attempted to carve out their own separate Serbian republic within Bosnia-Herzegovina, until the Dayton Accord in November 1995 there were only a total of "around 300 casualties"?
If that's what you are saying, it's ludicrous. It's simply unbelievable that you would even try to slide a whopper that big past everyone.
For a guy that doesn't want to discuss Human Rights, I'm amazed you even mentioned Chechnya.
UN sent troops to Bosnia? Go back and READ what I wrote. It ABSOLUTELY WAS A UN DECISION to send a multi-national force to Bosnia. It did that in UN Security Council Resolution 1031, December 15, 1995.
14. "Authorizes the Member States acting through or in cooperation with the organization referred to in Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement to establish a multinational implementation force (IFOR) under unified command and control in order to fulfil the role specified in Annex 1-A and Annex 2 of the Peace Agreement;
Do a little research please.
I agree that the UN did not specifically authorize the airstrikes in '99. I think it was wrong to do it without the authorization too. You'll have to look to the Commander-In-Chief at the time to see who authorized that screw-up.
However, that does NOT change the fact that the people of the US opposed sending troops to the region and the House of Representatives initially voted against funding the troop deployment. Clinton did it anyway and Congress fell into line to support the troops, once it was clear Clinton was sending them anyway.
You made the claim the US was eager to get into this mess, which is just more typical revisionist BullSh*t.
Further, Bush and Rumsfeld talk about pulling troops out now and who screams? Not the people of the US; they're in favor of the withdrawal. It's our European Allies making all the noise against it.
Now to your preposterous WW2 bombing claims.
Unlike the Soviet system, our crewmembers didn't (and don't) have to spy on each other and they don't have to hide anything. There's no "political officers" in our forces.
In fact, one reason why we are pretty successful in the air is that our "crew concept" insures that EVERYONE knows what's going on a mission. It's always been that way, even in WW2.
My father-in-law attended the full crew mission briefs before launch. If there were targets in the area that weren't supposed to be hit, EVERYONE was briefed. Why? Because in combat you never know who's going to have to do what job. Sometimes Engineer/Gunners had to fill in for injured pilots. Late in the war, they didn't even use Bombardiers for the most part. They substitued enlisted "toggleers" to drop when the lead ship dropped.
I'll give you and example. When they hit Cologne, my father-in-law specifically remembers being briefed "not to hit the Cathedral". They told EVERYONE that.
Now, based on a Soviet Ace (bet he flew more missions and for a longer period than any US Ace, too, didn't he? :D Your ego is in sore need of anything that floats to hold it up, isn't it?) that supposedly talked to ONE B-17 crewmember you're going to tell me we didn't bomb any factories that had US investors?
LOL. If we failed to hit a factory it's because we MISSED! Give me an example of a factory that was important to the war effort that we didn't try to hit that had US investors. Until you can do that, it's just more of your revisionist BS.
Between the US and the British I'll wager there were d*mn few factories we missed completely.
Dresden: You didn't do any research, did you? The ARGONAUT Conferences of January-February 1945 at Yalta; Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff started the Dresden ball rolling. Check it out.
Yes, Russia is able to destroy the world.
You've successfully destroyed your own country. You d*mn near destroyed the USSR satellite nations. You wasted the lives of an entire generation since WW2 in your own country and the satellites with an economic system that was never suited to or compatible with basic human nature. It hasn't worked anywhere.
Now your political and economic instability has resulted in yet another true threat to World Peace and Security. The proof of it is in your lightly veiled threats in this and other threads. I'm guessing you are pretty typical of those longing for the "good old days" when nations trembled in your shadow.
The silly idea that the US would use nukes first is given the lie by one simple fact:
Russia simply has NOTHING the US would go to war to get. We can trade for anything we need; since the time of our first President, Washington, COMMERCE has been the goal of the US. Not conquest... COMMERCE. (Yes, throughout the years we've goofed a few times.)
You have nothing we want that we can't buy from you or some other country. Why would we fight for anything?
In 1999 we Heavily Subsidised or outright GAVE Russia the following foodstuffs:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/n100329.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/n100329.pdf)
"The Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service administered and negotiated agreements under these programs.1 Under the title I agreement...the United States provided about 1.8 million metric tons of various commodities that were sold to the Russian government on concessional loan terms.
The section 416(b) program agreement, also signed in December 1998 and amended in
March 1999, provided 1.7 million metric tons of wheat to the Russian government on a donation basis.
A Food For Progress agreement was added in February 1999 that shifted 80,000 metric tons of two commodities(non-fat dry milk and pork) from the Public Law 480 title I sales program to the donation program and also donated 15,000 metric tons of seeds.
All of the commodities were to be sold to raise funds for the Russian Pension Fund and six designated agricultural projects, except for 411,400 metric tons of wheat, which were to be donated to Russian social institutions to feed the most needy.
In addition, the Foreign Agricultural Service selected five private voluntary organizations to distribute about 97,000 tons of various donated ready-to-eat commodities throughout Russia under the Food For Progress and section 416(b) programs.
A summary of the tonnage, U.S. cost, and value of the proceeds expected to be generated by the sale of commodities distributed under these programs is presented in table 2."
All in all, in 1999, the US gave or sold Russia commodities worth $1,106.5 (millions) and received from Russia $355.5 (millions) in return. In short, a three quarters of a billion dollar gift of foodstuffs.
That's just ONE area in which we TRIED to help.
Does this sound like something an ENEMY does?
Get rid of the paranoia. It's one of your country's big obstacles to success.
..and we WANT you to succeed.
Good Luck.
**********
Dnil, I doubt he'll ever be convinced that the US isn't the "Great Satan". :)
I'm just not going to let some of these BS claims go unchallenged. :D
-
American government is traditionaly unpredictaple, and usualy lacks any kind of common sence in foreign politics decisions. Can anyone tell me a sane reason for Yugoslavian war in 1999? What did it end up with?
I really feel sorry for you Boroda, because you're still stuck in all that misinformation, propaganda and xenophoby towards the former enemies. After ten years of democracy one would think that citizens would adapt to the newly acquired freedom and initiate some thinking patterns of themselves. But no, still all cliches and prejudicial beliefs, sad......
-
hehe toad, keep holding the torch bro. How dare you bring validated facts to this argument. ;)
-
Toad, we have different sources and different opinions, and it's impossible to persuada each other in such a discussion. But it's fun :)
About UN resolutions and Yugoslavia - I agree with you about Bosnia, but I asked you about war in 1999. There was NO UN decision to start bombings. Bombings were criminal, violating international laws and people who issued criminal ordered must be arrested and trialed.
I already told you about "american assistance", but looks like you don't play preferance.
All that donations in fact were a disaster. They came in the years when Russia had extremely big harvest, so there was no need in such "aid". Someone in the government was bribed, or simply used an old "take if they give" rule. Wheat prices in Russia went down, even without "american assistance" they should have dropped. Many experts said this was an open attempt to ruin Russian agriculture. Russia is a great market for Western food, so removing competitors is a smart idea. Russian agriculture is traditionaly ineffective since 1930-s, so to destroy it you don't have to use great effort.
Why Russia is dangerous to US:
It doesn't follow US decisions as other countries.
It has enormous energy and raw resources, and capable to influence world markets in this fields.
It has a strong military-industrial complex, competitive to the US, and can supply arms to "rogue nations" (another newspeak phrase. Ever thought of writing a "modern newspeak" dictionary?).
It openly opposites US in their support for Moslim extremists all over the world.
The complex of problems ig bigger then between US and China.
As for me - US is an enemy of Russia because it supports Chechen terrorists. That's enough. Please tell me any example when USSR or Russia interfered into the US internal affairs.
-
Here is a funny cartoon that IMO expresses a right view on politics:
(http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2001/dancart1030.jpg)
:)
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
... but I asked you about war in 1999. There was NO UN decision to start bombings. Bombings were criminal....
Boroda, please READ what I wrote. I AGREE with you about the Nato Air Campaign. Now, why don't you write Clinton about it? He's the Commander-In-Chief that authorised it on Presidential authority alone (which he unfortunately legally had).
Originally posted by Boroda:
I already told you about "american assistance", but looks like you don't play preferance.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are driving at here or before.
Originally posted by Boroda:
All that donations in fact were a disaster. They came in the years when Russia had extremely big harvest, so there was no need in such "aid".
That was just 1999 numbers. Don't make me go and dig out every single year, for Pete's sake! I think it goes back into the '80's at the very least.
Also remember that this is FOOD AID ONLY. I could research direct gifts of money, reduced rate loans, etc., etc., etc.
Point is we've been TRYING to help for a LONG, LONG, time in many ways.
Are these the things a true enemy does Boroda? We are not your enemy; there's AMPLE evidence of that.
You folks need to put an end to the paranoia that has hobbled Russia since before the Tsars.
Originally posted by Boroda:
Many experts said this was an open attempt to ruin Russian agriculture. Russia is a great market for Western food, so removing competitors is a smart idea. Russian agriculture is traditionaly ineffective since 1930-s, so to destroy it you don't have to use great effort.
See? More of the unending paranoia. Do you remember when US farmers, the actual tillers of the soil, came over there in the '70's and 80's to try and show you folks our methods? I guess they came to ruin you agricultural system too. :rolleyes: Or maybe to learn your advanced methodology. We've had your farmers over here in Kansas and Iowa too. :D
We've given you aid in multiple areas of your economy, good years, bad years, most years.
You guys are doomed as long as you think "everyone is out to get us". The only ones "out to get you" is YOURSELVES. You've done a d*mn good job of it too.
"Why Russia is dangerous to US:
It doesn't follow US decisions as other countries."
But we don't care. Go your own way.
It has enormous energy and raw resources, and capable to influence world markets in this fields.
As do we ourselves. Beyond that, Commerce is our "thing". Buy low, sell high. That's Capitalism. ;)
It has a strong military-industrial complex, competitive to the US, and can supply arms to "rogue nations"
Competition is GOOD! It's what Capitalism is all about. Maybe we'll buy some fighters from you. :)
The "supplying arms to Rogue Nations" does put you in conflict with the US. It puts you into conflict with most of Europe and most of the intelligent nations of the world. If that's the path Russia chooses, it won't be just the US that is disappointed. It'll be every nation that has a drop of common sense.
It openly opposites US in their support for Moslim extremists all over the world.
You're saying the US supports Moslem extremists? LOL. We've got our own problems with them. Osama Bin Laden ring a bell? Iraq? Iran? Libya? No, sorry, I'm not buying this one! Too funny!
If you're referring to your version of Bosnia, then take it up with the UN that put the multi-national forces in to begin with. As I said, the American people were VERY RELUCTANT to even get involved.
As for me - US is an enemy of Russia because it supports Chechen terrorists.
Two questions:
What "support" has the US given Chechen terrorists? Documentation, please.
Please explain Russia's claim to sovereignity over Chechnya.
Under Nicolas I there was continual fighting in an attempt to bring them into the Empire, right? About 1859 Alexander II finally had the situation under "control"?
So Russia's "right" to Chechnya stems from the involuntary conquest of the Chechens in the second half of the 1800's?
The Chechens rebelled again and again, didn't they? Chechen insurrections were recorded again in 1862-1863, in 1877, in 1905, 1917-1925, in 1929-1936 and again in 1940-1951?
It doesn't sound like Russia ever fully conquered the Caucasus; now it's in "rebellion" again.
My question is where does Russia's "right to rule" Chechnya stem from? They were NEVER voluntarily part of your Empire any more than Poland or East Germany were, were they?
I'm not really a student of the Chechen situation (as yet ;) ) so please enlighten me.
Now, before we stop:
300 Deaths in the ENTIRE Bosnian affair? Come on... admit it... this is a HUGE understatement. Or, show YOUR documentation. Mine is all over the Web and in news reports from just about any news agency in the world. Let's match numbers!
Did you look up Argonaut? The Soviet Union had their hand in the bombing of Dresden, old chum. All the Allies did; Dresden's death knell first rang in Yalta.
Not bombing German factories with American investment?
Put up or shut up, please. Name one and let's do some research on it. I'll soon have access to all the mission records of the 303rd BG, with the targeting orders. Let's see what turns up. Just supply a city and the factory that was "off limits" and I'll see what printed and oral (from a living vet) that I can find. As I said, I just met a Navigator at the 8th AF museum. He was huddled in that small nose with the bombardier. Let's see what he has to say.
Time to show what you've got.... if anything.
-
hehe dont hold your breath for info toad, I still havent got any on the 2 f14s the libyans shot down. :rolleyes:
-
Well, having seen a bit more than I ever wanted to around the world. I say nuke Russia and the Chicoms and go ahead and toss a couple at Cuba and sprinkle a few around europe and get it over with. I'm tired of being scolded my eurotrash and other foriegners for anything we do, but they don't mind near a million of us goin over to save them and dying over the last 200 years. As far as England,France and all them other unimportant little pissant countries berating us Americans for being uncivilized and devilish in our ideas and methods let the fun start there i'll be more than happy to push the first button but i'll be damned if i'll ever pull another trigger. Far as retaliation from Russia, hell 3/4 of the missles never make it out of the silos probably blow in the holes due to lack of maintenence and general degradation of the overall systems over there toss in the vodka blurred vision of the forces and you got youself a real birthday party. As far as the ABM treaty with the SOVIET UNION it doesn't exist with Russia you idjits.
-
Oh yeah Boroda we have guys like you in the USA that have this survival stuff ready for the big day at any moment...we call them wackos, lucky you will only find you in about 1:30,000 people here, not enough for a majority vote in a democratic country.
-
When reading this or similar boards, i see we are lightyears away from being peacefull nations. So much hate, kinda scary, no wonder we will blow each other to hell one day.
have a nice day ;)
-
Toad, I'm not a boyscout or a young pioneer. Stop telling me all this happidities about "help", sacred "capitalism" and "competition is good". Good for whom!? For Lockheed-Martin or Rockwell?! Remember that "What's good for General Motors is good for America"?
Have you read Zbignew Brzezinsky's "Grand Chessboard"? It says a lot about methods and goals of US politics in Eurasia. After reading THAT I simply can't listen to such sugar-sweet expainations.
Again: "rogue nation" is a newspeak term, and this is a damn fascist newspeak. You see - it's not "rogue regime" or "rogue government", it's "NATION"!
Who the hell gave your Big Brothers is DC the right to decide if this or that NATION is defined as "rogue"?
I am tired of you twisting my words. Where did I say about 300 casualities in Bosnia!? I was always speaking about Kosovo conflict!
Soviet agriculture indeed was traditionly ineffective SINCE 1930s. Since collectivisation. Now Russian peasants simply forgot how to work. Frankly speaking 90% of them can be called "parasites" :(
Then - Chechen war. US Secretary of State meets representatives of "Free Ichkeria", despite of the Russian Foreign Ministry decisive protests. Is it another demonstration? "See figure 1"? Or a talks about supplying Stingers?! Toad, there were Stingers captured in Chechnya, as well as full loads of US-manufactured uniforms and military equipment being shipped as "humanitarian aid" (BTW another good example). Or "Free Ichkeria and Famous Chechens" books, full of anti-Russian propagands, also printed in the US. Is it "aid" to Russia or supporting bloody gangsters who blow up apartment houses in MY city and take pregnant women as hostages!?
And the American support of Albanian terrorists is obvious, and their gangleaders like Hashim Tachi already said they got weapons and equipment from US. Looks like a competition between US government and Bin Laden - who'll help better.
Toad, do you know why America dosn't have problems with Indian uprisings and armed struggle? The answer is simple: there are no more Indians. Don't you wonder why Evil Russians didn't learn this truely progressive and time-saving experience from the US? They didn't slaughter Chechens, and left this problem for future.
Imagine Anglo-Saxon population in Southern California or Puerto-Rico being murdered, raped, robbed and enslaved, with international media howling about "human rights" when US Army will use force to protect them?
B52Charlie, I hope I AM paranoid, but I don't throw away a gas-mask. God protects people who protect themself. And it's useful when you deal with toxic chemicals like oil paint.
But reading your posts I think I am right. The danger still exists. Nothing to say about your opinion, it's your right to express it, and many thanks from me. Discussions are too boring without happy idiots like you.
B52Charlie, this time you get the price. Take a cookie from a shelf.
Toad, I think that you can find any info on the Net much faster then me. Would you be so kind to show me some documents from Yalta about request to bomb Dresden?
-
Dnil, 2 F-14s were shot down by Lybians in March, 1986.
Here is an evidence from a guy who was a radar operator there. Now he flies WB with us. I don't want to translate it myself, you can use www.translate.ru (http://www.translate.ru)
Опыт боевого применения ЗРК С-200 в СНЛАД в марте 1986 года.
После очередной политической склоки между Ливией и США, в марте 1986 года , в сиртовский залив пришла авианосная группа США в составе 2-х авианосцев и кораблей прикрытия. Для США это было достаточно привычная демонстрация силы.
В тот же момент в Ливии был завершен монтаж новой для СНЛАД (Социалистическая Народная Ливийская Арабская Джамахирия (республика ;)) системы ПВО – С200. Система уже функционировала, но запас ракет был ограничен из за срывов в поставках. Поэтому приход авианосного соединения был так же связан с развёртыванием новой системы ПВО. Я в тот момент в основном оказывал содействие группе наших советников по системе С-200 как переводчик и представитель дивизии ПВО Ливии.
С первого дня прихода в сиртовский залив, авиация США совершала провокационные полёты вдоль ливийской границы, особенно в районе сиртовского залива и «линии смерти». («Линия смерти» (Хат аль моут ;) была проведена почётным полковником Каддафи между двумя основными городами Ливии – Триполи и Бенгази ;). Основная задача данных провокаций- попытка вынудить выйти в эфир (включить на излучение передатчики ;) новой системы ПВО в районе г. Сирт и базы ВВС Ливии 2-й дивизии ПВО. Учитывая, что новая система ПВО была запущена не до конца, особенно в вопросах взаимодействия и опознавания самолётов, было принято (спорное ;) решение свою авиацию не применять. ВВС убрали в капониры, замаскировали.
Учитывая полное превосходство американцы стали наращивать присутствие авиации в воздухе. Доходило до 120-140 истребителей одновременно. Так продолжалось несколько дней.
Не получив необходимую информацию американцы пошли на прямую провокацию- около 14-00 по ливийскому времени «линию смерти» пересекли 2 истребителя США F14 «Томкет» с целью спровоцировать выход в эфир системы ПВО. В эфир было разрешено выйти только С200. Учитывая ограниченный запас ракет, командир бригады приказал открыть огонь 2-м каналам, но по одной ракете каждый. Американцы по видимому не обладали точной информацией по дальности поражения С-200 (>200 км ;) и надеялись совершить противоракетный манёвр, но обе ракеты успешно поразили оба истребителя, что мы собственно говоря и наблюдали по экранам ПРВ 17 (радиовысотомер комплекса С –200). (В первый раз немного жуткое зрелище.)
В течении нескольких минут авиация была возвращена на авианосцы. Наступило томительное ожидание ответного удара. Вся система ПВО 2-й дивизии ПВО СНЛАД была приведена в состояние боевой готовноси, мы все тоже убыли непосредственно на боевые места. Через несколько часов подготовки в воздух было поднято более 100 самолётов противника, при поддержке самолётов ДРЛО и РЭБ. (Ну началось-пронеслось в голове ))) Используя прикрытие активных помех в боевые порядки был запущен беспилотный самолёт разведчик, который так же был сбит при пересечении «линии смерти». Используя некоторое замешательство после поражения беспилотника, с нескольких направлений для провоцирования ПВО устремились истребители и штурмовики. При выходе в эфир дивизионов по ним наносились удары ракетами «Шрайк», наводящимся по лучу станции дивизиона ПВО. Но ни один дивизион не пострадал ,так как командиры во время выключали высокое и ракеты уходили выше или падали не долетев. Такая игра со смертью продолжалась несколько часов и в один из моментов боя по позиции С-200 был нанесен ракетный удар совершенно новыми ракетами «Харм»( с запоминанием курса излучения дивизиона ПВО ;). Удар был достаточно неожиданным и одна из ракет попала в кабину антенной системы С-200. Один из каналов был повреждён. Остальные ракеты прошли мимо и взорвались, одна досталась практически целой. (Это был очень важный момент-мы получили в руки уникальную ракету-ранее нигде не применявшуюся ;). Не взирая на упорное желание уничтожить 2-й канал американцам это не удалось, а нашими специалистами буквально за 24 часа был востановлен канал о чём сразу же стало известно американцам по кратковременным выходам в эфир канала. Это был настоящий шок для них и не желая увеличивать потери (не скрывая досады в радиоперехватах ) они посадили авиацию и ушли. Ушли отрабатывать тактику борьбы с данной системой ПВО.
Вернулись они через месяц… но это уже другая история ….
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Dnil, 2 F-14s were shot down by Lybians in March, 1986.
Опыт боевого применения ЗРК С-200 в СНЛАД в марте 1986 года....
[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]
I think it makes enough sense un-translated :)
-
Wonder how this story looked from US side.
Any links on what happened in Lybia in 1986?
-
haha what absolute bs boroda. NONE were shotdown, unlike your lovely toejamhole of a country, all records are open to the public and news organizations here.
why do we even listen to this known theif?
-
Like it or not Boroda, the evidence that Capitalism works and competition is good surrounds you.
Simply look at the nations that used those methods and compare them to the nations/countries that used or were FORCED to use Communism and little if any competition.
East Gemany vs West Germany? North Korea vs South Korea? Mainland China vs Taiwan and Hong Kong?
You can't deny that evidence.
I didn't twist your words, either. Go back and look again. Several times I asked you to clarify whether you were speaking ONLY of 1999/Kosovo or the entire Bosnian slaughter starting in 1992. Remember this?
"So you are going to post with a straight face that from 1992, when the Bosnian Serbs, assisted by the Federal Army of Serbia, attempted to carve out their own separate Serbian republic within Bosnia-Herzegovina, until the Dayton Accord in November 1995 there were only a total of "around 300 casualties"?"
I think you have deliberately sidetracked this part of the discussion.
Anyway, the point is that the airstrikes were generated by the LATEST slaughter in a long line of slaughtering. "Only 300 casualties" was 300 too many when added to the 159,000 before that. The Serbs just didn't realize that it was "the straw that broke the camel's back. (Don't start with the "illegal airstrike" stuff; I already agreed with you on that in case you didn't notice.)
There's nothing wrong with your "peasants" (quaint, archaic term; rather a negative connotation isn't it?) They know how to work. It's just that their work has been of no help in improving their lifestyle. Why work hard if there's no gain over working little? Your political/economic system screwed your agriculture, not your farmers.
They're not going to work hard until they see that there will be something in it for them if they do. Human nature; something Communism failed to take into account.
Once again, whether you choose to admit it or not, Russia has received huge amounts of aid from the USA over the years.
Once again, is this what an enemy would do? No, it isn't. Your paranoia probably won't let you admit it, however.
The Chechen war... first the important part:
Please tell me what is Russia's legitimate claim to rule Chechnya? Is it by right of conquest?
I repeat: "Under Nicolas I there was continual fighting in an attempt to bring them into the Empire, right? About 1859 Alexander II finally had the situation under "control"?
So Russia's "right" to Chechnya stems from the involuntary conquest of the Chechens in the second half of the 1800's?
The Chechens rebelled again and again, didn't they? Chechen insurrections were recorded again in 1862-1863, in 1877, in 1905, 1917-1925, in 1929-1936 and again in 1940-1951?
It doesn't sound like Russia ever fully conquered the Caucasus; now it's in "rebellion" again."
This history of continual fighting with only brief pauses that goes back to the early 1800's is Russia's justification for their current actions in Chechnya?
Please answer.
***********
Let's see... Soviet weapons have showed up in nearly every conflict around the world. Did the Soviet Union/Russia directly supply them to every single entity that used them in combat anywhere?
I asked for documentation. You tell me they found Stingers and uniforms in Chechnya. That isn't documentation that the US government directly supplied Chechen rebels.
Let's see... did Afganistan get a bunch of Stingers and US uniforms a few years back? Yes, indeed. Do the Chechens and Afganis share the same feelings about Russia? Oh, possibly. Could the Stingers have come from Afganistan? Most certainly. Does the US have any influence over Afganistan? Well, they're harboring Bin Laden and telling us to go p*ss up a rope when we ask about him.
Anyone can have ANY book printed in the US. All it takes is money. Free Press, remember? Sort of like Pravda and Isvestia used to be. :D
They didn't slaughter Chechens, and left this problem for future.
If the history I'm starting to read is correct, Russian didn't slaughter the Chechens because the Chechens pretty much fought you Russians to a standstill every time you tried to slaughter them. Like right now, for instance. It certainly doesn't appear to be for lack of TRYING to slaughter them.
BTW, I think the American Indian did get very bad treatment from the beginning. The Spanish, English and French didn't treat them very well, although the French were undoubtedly the best of the three.
The US government that came after that didn't treat them very well either. I'm looking forward to some of the pending court cases with great interest. I think the Indians are going to win some major ones; good for them. It's overdue.
Don't worry, Boroda, you ARE paranoid..even without guys like B52 around. The only thing the US wants from Russia is for you guys to get a stable political system, a workable economy and to join in the progress of the rest of the world. We are NOT your enemy.
Dresden?
Russia's General Antonov made a specific request at Yalta for the Allied air forces to destroy transportation and communication facilities in the general area. I don't believe it was a direct request to hit Dresden, however.
When this request filtered down to the targeting agencies in Bomber Command and 8th AF, the planners determined that strikes on Dresden would, in part, fulfill this request from the Soviet Union. (I think the Leipzig area got targeted as well.. will have to check.)
Going from memory here, but I believe the February 1945 raids were the only time Dresden was targeted. Apparently, Dresden had NOT been on the targeting list until this request was received from the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference.
-
Toad, I understand what "capitalism" means, and agree with you about E/W Germany etc. Also, speaking about Russian peasants you just repeated what I ment. I understand what "communist regime" is better then you - I lived under it.
Understanding the nature of capitalism, and, especially after reading Brzezinsky's book I have to say it loud: American "aid" to former USSR is destructive and aimed at destroying Russian state and economics. It's a sad fact. I don't quote so-called "patriotic press" and other looneys or commies, my opinion is based on a book by a former American high official.
About Chechen war.
Chechnya is a part of Russia by the right of conquer. Just like 99% of USA belongs to you.
The reason for Caucasian war that was started in Alexander I time, not in Nikolay I as you said, was to establish a common border and safeguard Georgia and other Caucasian Christian nations from Turkey and Persia. Usualy Russians didn't fight or "conquer" any nations, but in this case oyr brave highlanders lived by robbing caravans to Georgia and attacking Cossack settlements. In fact - Cossacks, the free people fought them for many years before Russian regular army interfered.
Chechens were defeated, and lived exactly as other nations in Russian Empire. In 1942-43 they statred their favourite business again: started to slaughter Russians and appealed to Hitler. On February, 23, 1944 ALL Chechens were... No, not slaughtered like American Indians. They were arrested and sent to Kazakhstan.
In late-50s Khruschev decided to bring them back, simply to show that Stalin was always wrong. What started in Grozniy was unbelievable by Soviet standards. After numerous murders and rapes, Russians workers living in Chechnya literaly took power, disarmed Militia, stormed the Republican Party comeetee and sent a petition to Moscow asking for protection from Chechens who statred to force Russian populatuiion to leave the republic.
There was no result. Many Russians simply ran away, and even Cossack lands North from Terek were given to Chechens.
It was relatively quiet until 1990-91. All that years Chechens got all possible dotations and benefits - just to keep them calm. In 1990 Dzhokhar Dudayev, former Soviet VVS general took power in Chechnya and declared open banditism as a national doctrine. BTW, my Father knew him, his Instirute built a runway for his Long-Range Aviation Division in Latvia, and he said that Dudayev was a typical uneducated highlander, who became a general only because of an idiotic Soviet national politics: every national minority had to have at least one general.
In 1991 thousands of Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish refugees started to leave Chechnya. The ones who stayed were robbed, enslaved (slavery existed in Chechnya even in happy Soviet times), or simply killed. Noone who didn't belong to Chechen clans (teips) felt safe there. Chechens again turned to their favourite business - robbery and armed attacks on nearby regions.
What amazes me is that Yeltsin waited until late 1994 to try to restore order there. Maybe one of the reasons was that Ruslan Khazbulatov, leader of one of the powerful teips was a Supreme Council chairman.
The other stage was obvious: Russian army entered Chechnya and started hostilities. At the same time some brass hats in Moscow discovered that this "war" is a good reason to hide stolen money. In 1995 almost billion dollars was sent to "restoration of Chechnya", and stolen by banks and companies that were contracted for "restoration under cannon fire". The best thing they did was a "present" to Russian soldiers there: a 1 dollar warm hat for everyone... The war continued, taking thousands of human lifes.
I am happy that now some kind of decisive measures were taken against terrorism, that now is fed by international Moslim organisations including your favourite Bin Laden. After explosions in Moscow, Buinaksk and Volgodonsk, that took more then 300 lives, after Chechen intervention to Dagestan - it was impossible to close the eyes on the problem.
Supporting Chechen terrorists means supporting the direct threat to the life of every Russian, to support people who maybe are planning to blow up MY apartment house right now.
Toad, excuse me, but I don't believe in Soviet General Staff commander requesting to bomb cities that are supposed to be under Soviet control. I'd like to see documents.
Toad, this thread turned into standard cold-war style throwing toejam at each other. It's entertaining, but useless as I said before.
Dnil, I hope that you can read Russian good enough to understand what I posted. If you don't - please, shut your respectable mouth. Maybe you'll say that no F-111s were shot down during the bombing of Tripoli later that year? You guys simply chew what your media feeds you, without a mere attempt to know where the truth is. US media is sometimes worse then Soviet media in 70s-80s.
As for calling me a "known thief" - I don't care. The dog barks, and the wind blows the barking away. We develop the product that was taken over by a gang of imbeciles and abandoned, and let everyone play for free, without even violating what they call EULA. If you don't agree with the laws of Russian Federation - go vote for bombing Moscow "to stone age". You have democracy, so your chances are quite good.
-
you post no facts comrade, just some person stating he shot down 2 f14s. There is no evidence from any other sources, just a rusian text, with my favorite quote of the honorable khadfi, gee i rest my case with that lovely statment. Yes 1 f111 was down, causes unknown, probably triple a. Hey whos the bright one here, you with the wonderful russian education or me the dumb american. I make in an hour what you make in a month comrade. Enjoy your stolen warbirds with your broken down economy and soon to be pimped out natural resources. :rolleyes:
-
Here comes so much expected americauberalles Dnil.
I DO respect colonel Kaddafi for his Green
Book. I bet that you didn't have an opportunity to read it.
Tomorrow I'll try to translate that beautiful evidence that contradicts Your media brainwashing CNN machine.
Toad is a great opponent, who knows almost everything he's talking about, and usualy backs his opinion with facts. But in this case - you'd better stop it. Two American planes were shot down over the Sirt gulf, by two S-200 targeting stations, one missile - one target. I'd call it 200% target destruction.
I wish anyone of you could see an S-200 missile takeoff, with concrete plates flying around like playing cards, thrown into the air by a 180ton exaust!
Dnil, try to inqire about what happened over the Sirt gulf in 1986...
Kaddafi is in the list of the "rogue nations" according to the US. I bet he is the most sane Arab politician.
If you don't know anything about US planes shot down over "the line of death" in 1986 - you'd better stop this "democratical" propaganda to convince me. I doubt that any American book or other source will admit that your Brave and Free fighter pilots were shot down by that "illiterate Arabs".
S-200 "Angara" is my military speciality. Senior Lt. - technical division, that guys wearing their insulating suits, gas masks, working in the brown oxydizer vapours, refueling the 11m long rockets.
At least we'll bring down your B-52 formations, with no problems - a 20kiloton warhead for any nuke bomber that will cross our borders.
And that B-52s were a great illumination over Hanoi. Was bright.
-
"If you don't know anything about US planes shot down over "the line of death" in 1986 - you'd better stop this "democratical" propaganda to convince me. I doubt that any American book or other source will admit that your Brave and Free fighter pilots were shot down by that "illiterate Arabs"."
... guided by the voodka stuffed ruskies...
Nope, haven't heard anthing about it Bor as it didn't happen. Guess you'll tell us next you have the ejection seats. Do they give you a kiss when the bend you over and feed you this crap?
--------------------
found this:
"The 1-11 was AF-70 2389, and it was hit whilst still feetwet inbound to the
strike - they were the last 1-11 in the KARMA flight (KARMA 52) to strike
the Al Azziziyah Compound with 4 GBU-10/C's. Whilst the crew had been told
that theirs was the riskiest place to be in the whole package they had
declined to back out of flying the mission.
They did eject, but both drowned, possibly due to ejection outside of the
parameters of the capsual. They were: Capt Fernando Ribas-Dominicci AC and
WSO Capt. Paul Lorence. Fernando's body was returned in 1989, Paul has never
been returned."
Seems a second failed to return due to unknown causes. Zero Tomcats were destroyed.
Interesting thread here: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=f91e299490e83971,30&start=20 (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=f91e299490e83971,30&start=20)
Mission info here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm)
[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
back to the original thread.....
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20010722/mdf27461.jpg)
Progress?
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010722/ts/group_russia_usa_dc_9.html (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010722/ts/group_russia_usa_dc_9.html)