Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seem to remember that the US got pretty upset when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in the 60s, so I can understand why Russia sees it as a threat....Why put them in Poland?
Defensive missiles,no warhead of any kind,nothing like the missiles that were to be based in Cuba.
The people of Poland and the Czech republic might still remember Russian(Soviet) oppression...it wasn't that long ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/wo...ef=todayspaper
The American military training for the Georgian troops has been described as involving counterterrorism for domestic security and counterinsurgency for the Iraq mission, with little emphasis on taking ground, holding ground or defending against invasion.
We never prepared them to defend themselves against their neighbor but to assist us in Iraq? If the younger generation in Poland Czech don't remember they have received a quick history lesson and may see that their friends in America are not in any position to assist them with us having our own problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/wo...ef=todayspaper
The American military training for the Georgian troops has been described as involving counterterrorism for domestic security and counterinsurgency for the Iraq mission, with little emphasis on taking ground, holding ground or defending against invasion.
We never prepared them to defend themselves against their neighbor but to assist us in Iraq? If the younger generation in Poland Czech don't remember they have received a quick history lesson and may see that their friends in America are not in any position to assist them with us having our own problems.
Finally some answers on what strats they used. I disagree on the article that russian had good propaganda campaign going. Maybe they swayed the domestic russian population but international proganda was way more important. Georgia and western media clearly won the propaganda war depeciting the russians as barbarians. Georgia's president is definitely media savy going to all american international points and speaking english.
Russian military spokesman Anatoly Nogovitsyn comes off as thug when he says the russian miltary can do whatever they want with russian ports in the Ukraine. definitely not going to win any support there.
I guess the georgians basically used MOUT against overwelhming force. I think they should start mounting a guerilla campaign based on mao's on guerrilla war.
2% armed resitance, 2% active support from the population, 2% passive support from the population. these are the numbers needed to wage a successfull campaign. Plus, you can use turkey and ukraine as staging operations.
The US was basically training the georgians for iraq. I don't think they expected Russians to attack. If they georgians planned on taking the provinces back without the russians getting involved, it would have been urban warfare where MOUT could have been used.
Russians were definitely watching what was going in Iraq and what tactics were being used. they also just fought in chechnya. they were battle hardened.
Location: I am from Russian province, from Orenburg. It is in the south, bordering with Kazakhstan
30 posts, read 21,318 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerous-Boy
The US was basically training the georgians for iraq. I don't think they expected Russians to attack. If they georgians planned on taking the provinces back without the russians getting involved, it would have been urban warfare where MOUT could have been used.
You mean, the USA was training them to bomb and kill civilians?
And that was the point in question. Would the Russians preemptively attack Poland or attack only in the event of a nuclear exchange.
Russia would attack only if hostilities existed between the US and Russia and an attack would come later than sooner.
The newest Russian ICBMs over the last decade are road-mobile. They're impervious to an ICBM/SLBM attack by the US. The US, even though it has surveillance satellites parked over Russia and knows the approximate location of the units, cannot target them because they move to safety at the first sign of a US launch. That isn't the only reason they'd move. Jamming communications or the loss of communications (etc etc) are often indicators of an attack and they would immediately deploy to safety by moving to their primary or alternate firing points.
That creates a situation where the US can attack Russia, and while it can't degrade the potential for a retaliatory strike by destroying Russian ICBMs, it can degrade the potential for a retaliatory strike through the use of ABMs.
In other words, the US can attack and destroy Russia, and while its ICBMs survive, Russia cannot retaliate because of the ABMs, leaving the US as the winner.
If the US is not targeting ICBMs because they're mobile, what then would the US be targeting?
Military installations and Russian cities.
The US initially claimed the ABM system was intended to protect against attacks from Iran, but that was never true. It was always intended to thwart Russian missiles.
The US then claimed the ABM system was intended to protect against an unspecified threat from the Middle East, but that was never true either. It was always intended to thwart Russian missiles.
The US is able to capitalize on the ignorance of its own people because most don't think 3-dimensionally.
When looking at this situation, look at a globe, not a map, a globe.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Russian ICBMs are not going to fly east across the Pacific Ocean to the US, they're going to fly north, across the Arctic Pole then south across Canada to the US.
That's the shortest distance.
By basing the ABM system in Poland, the US can intercept ICBMs before they reach the Arctic Circle and the 17,500 mph speed necessary to go sub-orbital.
You're the Russian Military Commander and the US launches. What's your first action?
You attack the Czech Republic and destroy the ABM radar site by any means possible, whether that's Spetznatz, Spetznatz with Czech partisans, ground troops, air strikes, conventional missile strikes or nuclear missile strikes.
The ABMs don't work without a radar. Once the radar is out, you can retaliate.
Then you attack Poland, not necessary because ABMs are there, but because that's were US ground troops will move to invade Russia.
Russia would attack only if hostilities existed between the US and Russia and an attack would come later than sooner.
The newest Russian ICBMs over the last decade are road-mobile. They're impervious to an ICBM/SLBM attack by the US. The US, even though it has surveillance satellites parked over Russia and knows the approximate location of the units, cannot target them because they move to safety at the first sign of a US launch. That isn't the only reason they'd move. Jamming communications or the loss of communications (etc etc) are often indicators of an attack and they would immediately deploy to safety by moving to their primary or alternate firing points.
That creates a situation where the US can attack Russia, and while it can't degrade the potential for a retaliatory strike by destroying Russian ICBMs, it can degrade the potential for a retaliatory strike through the use of ABMs.
In other words, the US can attack and destroy Russia, and while its ICBMs survive, Russia cannot retaliate because of the ABMs, leaving the US as the winner.
If the US is not targeting ICBMs because they're mobile, what then would the US be targeting?
Military installations and Russian cities.
The US initially claimed the ABM system was intended to protect against attacks from Iran, but that was never true. It was always intended to thwart Russian missiles.
The US then claimed the ABM system was intended to protect against an unspecified threat from the Middle East, but that was never true either. It was always intended to thwart Russian missiles.
The US is able to capitalize on the ignorance of its own people because most don't think 3-dimensionally.
When looking at this situation, look at a globe, not a map, a globe.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Russian ICBMs are not going to fly east across the Pacific Ocean to the US, they're going to fly north, across the Arctic Pole then south across Canada to the US.
That's the shortest distance.
By basing the ABM system in Poland, the US can intercept ICBMs before they reach the Arctic Circle and the 17,500 mph speed necessary to go sub-orbital.
You're the Russian Military Commander and the US launches. What's your first action?
You attack the Czech Republic and destroy the ABM radar site by any means possible, whether that's Spetznatz, Spetznatz with Czech partisans, ground troops, air strikes, conventional missile strikes or nuclear missile strikes.
The ABMs don't work without a radar. Once the radar is out, you can retaliate.
Then you attack Poland, not necessary because ABMs are there, but because that's were US ground troops will move to invade Russia.
As always, the unusually well informed Mircea enlightens us.
Thanks!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
