Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on January 22, 2008, 01:01:28 PM
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html
Very interesting read. I agree completely with it. I liken it to the need one has for pre emptive self defense when confronted with a crazed murderer.
As terrible as it is to have to kill another human being, it beats being killed yourself.
Here is a snippet: the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".
There are no guarantees in life, not as an individual, a community, a state, a nation, the West, or the world. Be ready to defend at all levels.
-
Reading through it, these are simply the thoughts' and feelings' of ex-commanders. What is NATO's official policy, that the current serving heads' have to follow?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Reading through it, these are simply the thoughts' and feelings' of ex-commanders. What is NATO's official policy, that the current serving heads' have to follow?
Frode, reread it again. It was authored by ex-commanders, but the information was received through conversations with current commanders and policy makers.
See the snippet below:
The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views.
-
You're right, Bodhi-It also expresses' the views' of current NATO leaders' as well. However, the way the thing is written, It looks like it's asking for a first-strike option to be implemented, which is what led me to wonder if a first-strike is current official policy.
-
Thats a good question Frode...
If NATO is still operating under the old cold war policy then the official position would be "no comment". NATO would never agree to a "no first use" policy against teh USSR.
The article is vacuous on that point.......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Very interesting read. I agree completely with it. I liken it to the need one has for pre emptive self defense when confronted with a crazed murderer.
Russian military said it 15 years ago.
But we are just "crazy murderers", not some "civilized" countries who bombed at least three foreign nations into stone age since 1999 and killed a million civilians in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
killed a million civilians in Iraq.
That's been debunked, thoroughly.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russian military said it 15 years ago.
But we are just "crazy murderers", not some "civilized" countries who bombed at least three foreign nations into stone age since 1999 and killed a million civilians in Iraq.
Some one had to lose.....chin up lil buckaroo!!!!
-
Russian military said it 15 years ago.
====
what did they say?
But we are just "crazy murderers", not some "civilized" countries who bombed at least three foreign nations into stone age since 1999 and killed a million civilians in Iraq.
====
I supported your soviet aggression in Chechnya.....cant understand why it was so hard for your military there. Although it appears to have been at least a very poor success (better than a good failure fyi)......I also knew twenty years ago that the haji in afganistan were bad creatures. I understood why Reagan was helping them fight you, as you helped the North Koreans and North Vietnamese fight us, anyway.....I wish you guys would have ended those mujahadeener cave chimps for good, still cant understand why your military failed so miserably there.
Better luck next time I guess....
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Some one had to lose.....chin up lil buckaroo!!!!
Lose what?
Now it seems that rumors of Russians "losing" were slightly exaggerated.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Russian military said it 15 years ago.
====
what did they say?
That preemptive nuclear strike is a base of our military doctrine, since we can't afford a full-scale conventional war. Our General Chief of Staff said it again in public last week. It was discussed here on this board.
Originally posted by Yeager
I supported your soviet aggression in Chechnya.....cant understand why it was so hard for your military there. Although it appears to have been at least a very poor success (better than a good failure fyi)......I also knew twenty years ago that the haji in afganistan were bad creatures. I understood why Reagan was helping them fight you, as you helped the North Koreans and North Vietnamese fight us, anyway.....I wish you guys would have ended those mujahadeener cave chimps for good, still cant understand why your military failed so miserably there.
Better luck next time I guess....
Look at the results: wherever Red side won - there is peace and prosperity, wherever Blue side won - there is starvation, poverty and terrorism.
Chechnya is a very first example of successful "vietnamisation" in modern times, in fact - a continuation of Russian Imperial policy. First Chechen campaign in 94-96 was a political failure, not military. We had too much smart crooks (who live in UK now) who got money for issuing retreat orders for our troops. And our former regime have literally raised Chechens thinking they will be a Damocles sword over Caucasus, and got opposite results...
And don't forget that Chechnya is OUR land. At least a bigger part of it, Cossack land.
-
Well Im glad you got Chechnya straightened out...maybe someday we will have to do that to Texas :aok
Why didnt the USSR flatten Afganistan....Im still amazed you guys walked out on that......
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Lose what?
Now it seems that rumors of Russians "losing" were slightly exaggerated.
dude, you lost your empire, all of eastern Europe. Every country you conquered in the Great Patriotic War.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Look at the results: wherever Red side won - there is peace and prosperity, wherever Blue side won - there is starvation, poverty and terrorism.
Uhm, are you high? Which side of Germany needed all those supply drops to feed civilians? Must be those propaganda films I've been watching. I'm sure North Korea is a fantastic place to live, but it can't be better than Cambodia under Pol Pot.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Look at the results: wherever Red side won - there is peace and prosperity, wherever Blue side won - there is starvation, poverty and terrorism.
Sure, cause North Korea is a great picture of Peace and prosperity... mmk