TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russia plans new ICBMs, nuclear subs
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium HAHAHAHAHA .... MUHAHAHAHA ...  Is that why USA and NATO are building ANTI-MISSILE systems in Alaska, Poland???? Where's the logic in that? How do you suppose a missile defense based in Alaska capable of protecting lets say Los Angeles, when in fact this base can see all East Russia easily. It will much smarter to build the base in Japan, Hawaii, Wake Island / Guam to better defend against Asian agression. BUT NOOOOO, USA wants missile bases in Poland (who gives a shit about Poland?) and in Alaska, clearly flanking Russia. No Iranian missiles will go across Polish territory - take out your map and draw a straight line from Iran to UK - no, no missile trajectory. |
Sheesh ... I leave for a couple days and this thread explodes.
Yea I don't see the threat of a European based ABM system. For one it is completely out of position to intercept Russian ABMs. Maybe if you took out a 2d map and drew a straight line, yea I guess one can make the mistake of assuming it might constitute a threat, but to anyone familiar with the trajectories of ICBMs and the fact that an ABM interceptor is trying to hit a weapon that�s arcing into space across a sphere, it would be silly to place an ABM system in Poland to defend against Russia. We�re dealing with a globe here, not Randy Mcnally�s road atlas �
Poland is highlighted Green, the Czech Republic in purple, Iran is the start of the trajectory, and Wash DC the end. Given the fact that the interceptors are THAAD missiles (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), it�s impossible for the missiles to intercept Russian ICBMs that are traveling over the North Pole, because they�d be playing catch up to them rather than striking them head on. They are however, ideally positioned for any long range Iranian strike against W. Europe. Maybe if they were notional boost phase intercept missiles, Russia might have a legitimate concern, but those are extremely expensive (several billion per single interceptor), and they would have to be extremely close to the Russian border � far closer than Poland. I don�t need to pull up a map of N. Korea and show the trajectory of missiles as they would hit the west coast now do I?
The point is, is that short of there being a revolution in ABM technological design, one that is able to destroy thousands of missiles within 10-20 minutes, roughly the time it would take for the missiles in a full strike to impact, it is impossible for the US to get away from MAD. Most certainly impossible with interceptor vehicles which are prohibitively expensive. Maybe if the US were able to develop a laser system capable of destroying hundreds of reentry vehicles in minutes or seconds (and if anyone is advocating that than you�re just retarded), it might have a chance � in which case the Topol-Ms would be obsolete anyway. The point is is that Russia is wasting money for a threat that doesn�t exist. Its nuclear deterrence is not threatened. Fine an aircraft carrier might be a waste of money too, my point wasn�t that Russia needs an aircraft carrier, my point is that a tactical weapon that can project power such as an aircraft carrier would be more useful than enhancing a nuclear deterrence that�s already 100% effective in guaranteeing MAD. Or spend more money on a couple tank battalions and send them to the Chinese border instead � spend the money on developing the Sakhalin oil/gas fields � or whatever Russia can waste more money on upgrading its ICBMs and SLBMs 500 hundred times over for all I care. It�s not my tax dollars and it�s not going to change the strategic balance of power in any way whatsoever so yea go ahead and develop and field Topol-Ms, Os, Zs, etc. By all means, Russia should be sure to spend trillions developing 10 ultimate missiles that will hit their targets like the other 3000 missiles that Russia has just to be double plus safe!
Actually a the biggest threat to Russia is probably the joke that its SSBN fleet has become. Very few boats are ever out to sea on patrol and many recent missile test firings have been failures. The USA could possibly post its SSBNs at Russia's shores and with no warning launch a massive strike and wipe out almost all its land based ICBMs, destroy all its airbases, and wipe out the majority of its SSBN fleet in port. That, coupled with US advances in sub detection could allow for the few boats out to sea being destroyed before they can launch.
If you take the 14 SSBNs carrying Trident missiles (24 missiles per boat, 5 MIRVed warheads per missile) you are talking 1680 highly accurate warheads falling all over Russia within minutes of launch, no time to prepare and launch land based ICBMs, no time to load and scramble bombers.
Not that we would want to do that.
Well let's not forget that Russia has an ABM system of its own in place.
| quote: |
A-135 / ABM-3 By June 1975 it was already possible to clearly define the purpose and time periods of development and creation of the new Moscow ABM system. A.G. Basistov became the general designer. V.K. Sloka was the chief designer of the multifunctional Don-2NP [PILL BOX] radar. A.G. Basistov headed the Council of Chief Designers, who were working on a new effective ABM system. This system, the ABM-3, became operational at Moscow in 1989. Five new launcher sites were constructed, and two Galosh sites were converted for the new system. The Moscow Industrial Area ABM Defense System (A-135) was accepted on alert duty by presidential edict of 17 February 1995. The Moscow anti-ballistic missile system, known as A-135, includes the full complement of 100 interceptor missiles permitted by the treaty [though published reports provide conflicting accounts as to the exact number of missiles]. The system includes three dozen long-range SH-11 Gorgon missiles, as well as over five dozen short-range SH-08 Gazelle missiles, which are quick-reaction, high-acceleration interceptors. Both types of interceptors are silo-launched. According to some reports, it is claimed that this system was taken off-line in December 1997 and remained inactive, although this does not appear to be confirmed by recent American statements on this subject. In February 1998 the commander in chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces -- Colonel General Vladimir Yakovlev -- said that the system needed some minor modifications, After these were completed, however, the "nuclear umbrella" over Moscow would once again be opened, he said. A few days later, Col. Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, commander-in-chief of strategic missiles forces, said the ABM system with conventional warheads on the Galoshs and Gazelles, was combat ready and would shortly be placed on 24-hour alert status. This suggested that Russia had abandoned plans to employ nuclear warheads on SH-11 Galosh and SH-08 Gazelle missiles. Experts had warned of the potential damage to Moscow, saying the detonation of a single warhead could contaminate a 77 square mile area. The ABM-3 incorporated several improvements over the Galosh. Mechanically steered radars were replaced by much more capable phased-array radars. And two types of interceptor missiles were used, taking advantage of atmospheric bulk filtering to discriminate decoys from actual warheads. The interceptors were deployed in underground silos to reduce their vulnerability to direct attack. Nonetheless, the ABM-3 was the technological equivalent the U.S. Sentinel/Safeguard ABM, and clearly shared the major limitations and vulnerabilities of that system. The components of the ABM-3 include: * 32-36 of the SH-11 long-range exo-atmospheric interceptor missiles, which are somewhat smaller than the massive Galosh and is probably three-stage solid-fuel rocket with a range of 300-400 kilometers and a multi-megaton warhead. * 64-68 of the SH-08 short-range endo-atmospheric interceptors, which are a two-stage solid-fuel with a range of about 100 kilometers and a low-yield nuclear warhead. It is similar in design and mission to the U.S. Sprint missile, although its maximum acceleration is reportedly significantly lower. In at least one test of the SH-08 short-range ABM interceptor, two interceptors were fired from a single launcher in an interval of two hours, although no reloading equipment was observed in the area. No other details on this incident have come to light. Given the short battle-time available to ABM systems, two hours does not seem to be particularly "rapid". * The ABM-3 phased-array short-range battle management radar replaced Try Add radars at Moscow ABM sites to support SH-08 interceptors It is similar in function to American Missile Site Radar, although smaller and less capable. * The Pushkino large battle-management phased-array radar constructed near Moscow provides 360 degree coverage and will supplement Dog House and Cat House radars in supporting SH-04 long range interceptors. * The Pechora-type bi-static phased-array early warning radar supplemented the Hen House radars. Deployment began in the late 1970's at seven sites: Pechora, Lyaki, Mishelevka, Olenegorsk, Sary Shagan, Kamchatka and Abalakova. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Sheesh ... I leave for a couple days and this thread explodes. Yea I don't see the threat of a European based ABM system. For one it is completely out of position to intercept Russian ABMs. Maybe if you took out a 2d map and drew a straight line, yea I guess one can make the mistake of assuming it might constitute a threat, but to anyone familiar with the trajectories of ICBMs and the fact that an ABM interceptor is trying to hit a weapon that�s arcing into space across a sphere, it would be silly to place an ABM system in Poland to defend against Russia. We�re dealing with a globe here, not Randy Mcnally�s road atlas � Poland is highlighted Green, the Czech Republic in purple, Iran is the start of the trajectory, and Wash DC the end. Given the fact that the interceptors are THAAD missiles (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), it�s impossible for the missiles to intercept Russian ICBMs that are traveling over the North Pole, because they�d be playing catch up to them rather than striking them head on. They are however, ideally positioned for any long range Iranian strike against W. Europe. Maybe if they were notional boost phase intercept missiles, Russia might have a legitimate concern, but those are extremely expensive (several billion per single interceptor), and they would have to be extremely close to the Russian border � far closer than Poland. I don�t need to pull up a map of N. Korea and show the trajectory of missiles as they would hit the west coast now do I? The point is, is that short of there being a revolution in ABM technological design, one that is able to destroy thousands of missiles within 10-20 minutes, roughly the time it would take for the missiles in a full strike to impact, it is impossible for the US to get away from MAD. Most certainly impossible with interceptor vehicles which are prohibitively expensive. Maybe if the US were able to develop a laser system capable of destroying hundreds of reentry vehicles in minutes or seconds (and if anyone is advocating that than you�re just retarded), it might have a chance � in which case the Topol-Ms would be obsolete anyway. The point is is that Russia is wasting money for a threat that doesn�t exist. Its nuclear deterrence is not threatened. Fine an aircraft carrier might be a waste of money too, my point wasn�t that Russia needs an aircraft carrier, my point is that a tactical weapon that can project power such as an aircraft carrier would be more useful than enhancing a nuclear deterrence that�s already 100% effective in guaranteeing MAD. Or spend more money on a couple tank battalions and send them to the Chinese border instead � spend the money on developing the Sakhalin oil/gas fields � or whatever Russia can waste more money on upgrading its ICBMs and SLBMs 500 hundred times over for all I care. It�s not my tax dollars and it�s not going to change the strategic balance of power in any way whatsoever so yea go ahead and develop and field Topol-Ms, Os, Zs, etc. By all means, Russia should be sure to spend trillions developing 10 ultimate missiles that will hit their targets like the other 3000 missiles that Russia has just to be double plus safe! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] Well, one thing I didnt see a straight line adjacent to the north pole that is close to poland - thanks for the map. |
| quote: |
Well, tell me this - Iran launches a nuke - AND IT WILL GO NEAR/THROUGH RUSSIAN TERRITORY. It will actually pass by about 500-1000 km from Moscow - well, yeah, Russia will be quite happy about this and do nothing. |
| quote: |
Remember in 1995 how Boris Yeltsin, who saw an American missile launched off the cost of NORWAY (how close to Moscow????) thought this was a pre-emptive American nuclear attack and for the first time in history a Russian/Soviet leader activated the nuclear briefcase???? YOU DONT REMEMER THAT? You think Iran doesnt see this? There's no way Iran will launch a missile by that trajectory without Russia launching something back in return. Its stupid, Russia will most likely launch a missile attack in return seeing a missile approach to Moscow. |
| quote: |
General Vladimir Dvorkin In 1995, the Norwegians launched a rocket which was mistaken for an incoming American nuclear missile by the Strategic Rocket Forces. How did that happen? Has there been an investigation by your institute or within the government, that you're aware of, of what happened in that situation? There has been no investigation of this issue and we don't see why there should be. The launch of the missile was detected and that information was passed on to the President....But there was nothing, not even in the very nascent form, in terms of taking any kind of retaliating measures....To make a decision to make a retaliatory, a massive retaliatory strike, is very hard decision; even if you possess the complete information and true information concerning the fact that your country has been hit. It's totally impossible to make a decision based on information about one missile. Our information was that it came within two minutes of the President having to make a decision in that particular instance. Does this not give you some cause for concern? No, that is all in the land of fantasy. I will say it again. No president, no matter what President it is, will ever make a decision about launch-on-warning based on information about one rocket or missile or even...two or three missiles. So, I think that all concerns in that regard are just wasted time. And I don't think that there is sufficient grounds for Americans to be concerned or worried about our control system. I think you should be more concerned with the falling birth rates in Russia, than a decreasing control system. Because that does not lead to the improvement of our economic state and also to the improvement of the military might and security. The United States does need a strong, big power that is economically strong....I have deep respect for the Americans and for the United States and I think that gives me some kind of a moral right to say that sometimes, you overly concentrate or overly focus on some problems that do not really have any ground. Russia is not [a] country. Russia is [a] continent, and without Russia, to provide global strategic stability [would be] impossible. And Russia could potentially become a very powerful center of stability in its half of the world. We don't have any ideological contradictions and we don't have any major economic claims against each other, so I think that we should become the centers of a stability in our respective continents and we should jointly provide for global stability, and I hope that eventually that will happen. General Eugene Habiger In 1995, there was a Norwegian rocket launch. The Russian forces supposedly were put on alert and went down to two minutes before they determined it was not an American missile. Is that your understanding of the facts? No. Not at all. Let me just kind of put it perspective for you. The Norwegians were going to launch this rocket. They were very sensitive about making sure that the Russians knew about it. Any country today that launches a missile puts out what they call a Notice to Airmen--it's through an international aviation organization--so that airplanes don't go flying over where this missile's going to be launched. So the Norwegians did that....In addition to that one channel of communication, the Norwegians went through the diplomatic channels to let the Russians know that this was going to happen. So you had two channels of information supposedly going up through the system. Somehow, neither one of those channels got up to their national command center.... And the best explanation, and the one that I have absolutely no reason to doubt, is this. Somehow in the bureaucracy, the word about this launch of the Norwegian missile did not reach to the military channels. The missile was launched. The missile was launched from what looked like [to] the Russians where one of our ballistic missile submarines would launch a missile. The general officer on duty saw the indications, went to his checklist. The checklist said, if you have this kind of indication, you let the following people know, including the President and his briefcase. Once that process was initiated, and within tens of seconds after that process was initiated, before any status change was made to any nuclear force, they determined that this was not a threat to Russia. So no Russian military system was placed on an increased status of alert. And because they'd already initiated the procedures to contact the President, they went through and said, "There is nothing to worry about. We have just had an indication of a launch from Norway, and it is no threat to Russia...." All they did was activate a communications link. So it raised no concern in your mind? No. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...l/howclose.html |
| quote: |
Plus the distance between Iran and Washington D.C. by that map is at least 15,000 km (I think its about 18,000 km) - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer range than the longest Iranian missile can go. And they HAVENT EVEN DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So there you go! It will take at least 1.5 hours to reach American cities - and I dont think even the Russian misiles can fly on fuel for that long, not even talking about making a precise hit. Come on, man, think common sense ... Iran will not develop such technology for at least 20 years, they only have scuds that can barely reach south-eastern Europe for Christ's sake, their range is WAAAAAY too short even for UK. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider You�re welcome. As you can see, THAAD interceptors in Poland are in a very poor position to intercept Russian ICBMs. And then the missile will slow down from several thousand miles an hour to make a 90 degree right hand turn in space and then speed up again to hit Moscow? Look, do you not understand that this is simply impossible according to the laws of physics? There�s a whole science behind this that fighter pilots study in order to evade missiles. Do you think that Russian early warning systems use undergrads armed with TI-83 calculators to determine where a missile is going? These aren�t bottle rockets that you fire off in your back yard � these are ICBMs that use exo-atmospheric trajectories at speeds of thousands of miles per hour to hit their targets. If Russia doesn�t know where missiles launched from Iran are going within a minute or two with all their land/space based radars than you�d be the laughing stock of any nuclear power. Ok ok, no need to shout and no need to over dramatize events with superfluous emphasis. Yes the nuclear briefcase was enabled � which enabled communication with the President�s top military advisors to review the situation for the first time. The incident was triggered by a single missile that resembled the trajectory and speed of an SLBM Trident missile launched away from Russia to blind land based radars. Russia still had full operational capability of their early warning satellites to determine that there was no threat. Don�t take my word though � Sigh � so first you claimed that Russia needed enhancements of its strategic nuclear forces in response to your claims that MAD was being directly threatened by the US ABM system. I believe that I responded to that argument to which I received no response. Is that argument settled? Your subsequent argument is that the Polish based THAAD system is secretly targeting Russian ICBMs as opposed to Iranian ICBMs to which I responded and did not receive a response. Is that settled based upon the laws of physics? Now you�re arguing about strategic capability and nuclear deterrence rationale. Something I�m very surprised to see you argue since you completely chose to ignore it when I previously raised it but now find it very convenient for your argument. Yes current Iranian SCUD missiles are incapable of reaching the US, but let us not forget that there�s been trade in nuclear technology and rocketry between N. Korea and Iran. Unless you forgot, the supposed range of the Taep'o-dong 2 is estimated to be around 5000-9000km. Well within the range of the west coast and/or western Europe �. The explicit purpose of the Polish ABM system. Christ, you yourself asked us to draw a straight line from Iran to the Uk � we�ve done so. I hope that we can get away from the path of tangential arguments and that we can continue our original argument to which I responded to and am still awaiting a response. |
It's fun watching Magnetonium get repeatedly owned.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne It's fun watching Magnetonium get repeatedly owned. |
. Obviously this system has another, more obvious use - to defend against Russia.
I didn't say anything about the ABM in Poland.
You remind me of that crazy homeless guy who is spinning around and wildly slashing the air with his knife and thinks everyone is trying to attack him.
I'm not even having that argument with you, dude. But it's fun watching you get repeatedly and thoroughly owned. Do you froth at the mouth when you type?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne I didn't say anything about the ABM in Poland. You remind me of that crazy homeless guy who is spinning around and wildly slashing the air with his knife and thinks everyone is trying to attack him. I'm not even having that argument with you, dude. But it's fun watching you get repeatedly and thoroughly owned. Do you froth at the mouth when you type? |
There is a purpose, a rationale behind building projects like Star Wars and new Russian missile system. These projects involve huge amounts of money. United States, for example, is not just building their Star Wars for being safe. In fact, they're safe from nuclear attack right now, as they were in early 1980s or so - when they started the program. In fact, during the warming Gorbachev era Reagan pursued his system even more. The planners know what they're doing. The purpose is not to protect America, but to make American aggression around the world safer so that noone can ever dare send a missile at USA. Thats the purpose. And Russia's fighting back in return - because it knows America's intentions and has its own world's strategy that will almost certainly collide with American project, and so it need NEW class weapons and joker-card to make United States bulge. Russia doesnt want to be isolated in the world stage as its becoming right now. Right now Russia's retreating everywhere, and America takes its former strategic zones one country at a time. Waving 40-year-old missiles at USA's latest military machine will not achiever anything. Arming Russia with newer tanks and guns will not make Russia look more powerful on the world scene.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium It would be very nice if you stated where I am getting owned or I suggest you stop talking out of your ass. Noone's getting owned here, there's not enough evidence to conclusively proof either side. I stick to common sense and believe in my side of it. /quote] The proof has been shown to you multiple times in this thread, by several people. However, you have chosen to willfully ignore it, side step it and argue minor points instead. I'm sure everyone else is tired of pointing out to you and showing you mutiple instances of proof as to why ABM shields right now and in foreseeable future are largely a pipe dream. [quote]At the same time, explain me why Russia wants to build newer, more powerful and sophisticated missiles? Not enough things to do? You think these generals, military planners are stupid and you, with all your military experience for certain know that they're wrong and dumb? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium There is a purpose, a rationale behind building projects like Star Wars and new Russian missile system. These projects involve huge amounts of money. United States, for example, is not just building their Star Wars for being safe. In fact, they're safe from nuclear attack right now, as they were in early 1980s or so - when they started the program. In fact, during the warming Gorbachev era Reagan pursued his system even more. The planners know what they're doing. The purpose is not to protect America, but to make American aggression around the world safer so that noone can ever dare send a missile at USA. Thats the purpose. And Russia's fighting back in return - because it knows America's intentions and has its own world's strategy that will almost certainly collide with American project, and so it need NEW class weapons and joker-card to make United States bulge. Russia doesnt want to be isolated in the world stage as its becoming right now. Right now Russia's retreating everywhere, and America takes its former strategic zones one country at a time. Waving 40-year-old missiles at USA's latest military machine will not achiever anything. Arming Russia with newer tanks and guns will not make Russia look more powerful on the world scene. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing. And my "expertise" certainly pales in comparison to men who do it for a living. However, that's not the point. The point is that not everything clear cut as you would like it to be. Why did the DoD spend 640$ per toilet seat, $240 per hammer and 2100$ per coffee maker? Why did the DoD cancel the RAH-66 Comanche project after plowing over 8 billion dollars into it? Why did congress approve building a $300 million bridge to an island of fifty people in Alaska? Why is Halliburton always the preferred contractor for no-bid government contracts? Because some ideas that seemed really good at the time, have turned out to be monumentally stupid in the hind sight. |
| quote: |
| Yes, there are a lot of idiots in the governments, and a lot of money runs the show. I respect other people's opinions in this matter, and I stick to mine, and its unfortunate this discussion turned out so sour. |
| quote: |
| Answer me this question now: Since these bases are allegedly aimed at preventing Asian rogue states' aggression - you dont really think that these are actually for most part used to monitor the activites of Russian military? I mean, this equipment is massive, employing a lot of people - you dont think that the job of these bases is also to defend against Russia? I bet what they do most of the time, especially now that Iran/NK doesnt have the missiles of the range, they just monitor Russia. You have to admit, thats exactly whats happening. When invasion of Iran will happen, will this Polish/Czeck base be dismantled, just like the NATO folding after the Cold War??? BTW, NATO built a similar base in Turkey during the Cold War to monitor Soviet military in Caucasus, it was used during bombing of Iraq throught both wars ;-). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne That's largely because you've been arguing in the face of all evidence, proof and arguments to the contrary. The very least you could do is just say, "that is my opinion and I dont need to justify it" instead of collectively insulting the intelligence of all participants in this thread and actually trying to validate what you were saying. Thanks for wasting our time and patience. That's not the argument that I was having with you. I wasn't even talking about any bases. Have you gone completely off the deep end? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium What the hell are you arguing about then? You just came to this thread to insult me (i.e. "you keep getting owned"). Well, dont blame me for insulting you then. |
| quote: |
| My point is simple - the military bases in Poland, Alaska are monitoring Russia, not NK or Iran because those countries are years away from building long-range ballistic, nuclear warheads capable of flying 15,000 km and hitting their targets precisely. NK, for example, failed in its attempt at a long range missile (and you guys say that Iran got NK's failed technology, hahahahah). So Russia sees this, and it rightfully building much better missiles to counter Star Wars and continuing USA/NATO encroachment around it. This way its sending a message that it will be ready against any missile defense shield or attack. Plus Russia needs some new much better guided, advanced missiles. Its NATO's expansion thats forcing it to really start putting the money from the sale of hydrocarbons into defense because it rightfully sees NATO as the biggest threat to its security, especially when NATO/USA/Europe keep reiterating Cold War threats, criticism of Russia and insults among lies, propaganda and other shit. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne We were talking about the advantages of power projection that aircraft carriers provide over nuclear weapons and how it makes more sense to focus on conventional weaponry than building missiles whose feature3s and advnatges will probably be never utilized before they are rusting in silos since any kind of ABM shield is not viable now or in any foreeseeable future. Whomever you were having an argument with about bases, certainly wasn't me. By the way, what I said earlier wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. If you were insulted by it, I guess the truth struck a little close to home. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but ABM shields dont work. I know, it's shocking. Your entire argument is based on the premise that they do. Just thought I should make that clear for about THE TWELFTH TIME now. |
| quote: |
| If ABM will not work, and since it doesnt work - what good are the bases in Poland/Alaska then? And for your point, what good are the carriers when they cost a lot of money, they can be seen clearly with a naked eye, they require many ships and powerful anti-aircraft defenses to protect from? |
| quote: |
| How will an aircraft carrier protect a country? They are used for domination, which Russia is not into anymore. The truth is much simpler than you are stating it, I dont understand why you keep slathering away. Unless you are trying to rewrite Russia's foreign policy, which is not your job. Your are just basically trying to be a smartass while the facts speak for themselves - otherwise Russia would have never sold the aircraft carrier to India, kapish??? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne You have a curious way of arguing, you take something that has happened or will happen and place on the pedestal as an absolute and unquestionable truth. Then you point that out to someone and challenge to prove it wrong in some sort of bizarro reverse fashion. Here, let me demonstrate: "If speaking like a moron is a bad thing then why does President Bush do it? Certainly the most powerful man and leader of the free world knows what he is doing, he didnt get there just like that, so tell me then, why does he speak like an idiot? I challenge you!" What good is a 300$ bridge in Alaska for 50 people? what good is a 600$ toilet seat? Ah, the mysteries of life. Uh, aircraft carriers are not really used to "protect" a country, their purpose is to project force. Projecting force is a good thing for a state, because when it projects force, it projects influence. We already went over this. I am not arguing that they are trying to diminish their sea power and yes, that's why they sold Gorshkov because it was costing them around 25 million a year to maintain. What me and a few others are saying is that it's a bad move on their part to abandon force projection and put money towards nucl;ear weapons when there's really no need to. Here, in case you need a refresher - this was the original statement: ------- Originally posted by occrider They're not obsolete, they're most certainly operational. The argument to save money might make some sense, however, the justification for upgrading the nuclear arsenal isn't to save money but rather to retain nuclear parity. That doesn't quite make much sense given the circumstances of the situation. Russia's money would be better spent using it on aircraft carriers which can actually project military strength strategically and tactically without the unfortunate and unnecessary byproduct of a nuclear holocaust. ----------- That's an awesome point, I guess the question is whether Russia has the capacity to build up the functional support infrastructure to support aircraft carrier groups, including support ships, defense ships, upgraded docking/refitting facilities and whether they should design a new type of aircraft carrier (an undertaking that might be beyond their reach now) or build older models. I remember when they sold the Gorshkov carrier to India 2-3 years ago, I think they are left only with one carrier now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium So what's wrong with Russia not wanting to project its force around the world? That makes it a great country! Imagine how much money that saves, and how it keeps the world safer from further political conflicts and rivalries. Russia has a better and more effective "force" to project - oil and gas. Aircraft carriers are not necessary anymore. Quite frankly, if they sell the last one, I am for it. Concentrate all freed funds on strategic defense, border control and rebuilding the country. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aquadyne So you're basically advocating for Russia to barricade itself within its own borders and then build more nuclear weapons. Hey, did you go to Dr. Nick Rivera's Hollywood School for International Relations? In an age of globalization, isolationism is a policy that results in states like North Korea. One cannot simply withdraw into their borders, one has to actively project influence around the world to secure and protect its own interests. It doesn't happen if Russia just sits around within its own borders and "rebuild" |
USA lived in ISOLATIONISM FOR ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE UP UNTIL WW1. And you are saying they were like North Korea during that time? America was loved, adored, looked up to all that time. AMERICA FRIGGIN' WAS THE PEACE DEAL BROKER BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN IN RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR OF 1905!!! Man, you are gold. 
| quote: |
| USA lived in ISOLATIONISM FOR ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE UP UNTIL WW1. And you are saying they were like North Korea during that time? |
| quote: |
1800-1809 1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia from the Barbary pirates. Tripoli declared war but not the United States, although Congress authorized US military action by statute. 1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Captain Zebulon M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from General James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers. 1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Captain John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter. [edit] 1810-1819 1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Governor William C.C. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River. 1812 � Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President James Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by General George Mathews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President. 1812-15 � War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war against the United Kingdom. Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France. 1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. troops advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting. 1813-14 � Marquesas Islands. (French Polynesia) US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British. 1814 -- Spanish Florida. General Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British forces. 1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822, Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies. 1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared against the United States by the Dey of Algiers of the Barbary states, an act not reciprocated by the United States. Congress did authorize a military expedition by statutes. A large fleet under Captain Stephen Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities. 1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Captain Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812. 1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Negro Fort, which harbored fugitive slaves making raids across the Georgia border. 1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under General Jackson and General Edmond P. Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States. 1817 � Amelia Island(Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President James Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters. 1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, which made a landing at the mouth of the Columbia River to assert US claims. Spain and Russia had conceded sovereignty to the area but the British Empire had a parallel claim. Subsequent to this confrontation the two powers agreed to a joint occupancy of the region, which was finally resolved with the Oregon Treaty of 1846. [edit] 1820-1829 1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress. [1] 1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station. 1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca. 1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822. 1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers. 1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates. 1827 -- Greece. In October and November landing parties hunted pirates on the Mediterranean islands of Argenteire, Miconi, and Androse. [edit] 1830-1839 1831-32 � Falkland Islands. Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels and sought to protect American interests. 1832 � Sumatra. (Indonesia) - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship. 1833 -- Argentina. - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection. 1835-36 -- Peru. - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution. 1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Texas), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened. 1838 - The Caroline Affair on Navy Island, Canada. After the failure of the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837 favoring Canadian democracy and independence from the British Empire; William Lyon Mackenzie and his rebels fled to Navy Island where they declared the Republic of Canada. American sympathizers sent supplies on the S.S. Caroline, which was intercepted by the British and set ablaze, creating an incident. 1838-39 � Sumatra (Indonesia). - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping. [edit] 1840-1849 1840 -- Fiji Islands. - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties. 1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group (Pacific Ocean). A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives. 1841 � Samoa. - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island. 1842 -- Mexico. Commodore T.A.C. Jones, in command of a squadron long cruising off California, occupied Monterey, Calif., on October 19, believing war had come. He discovered peace, withdrew, and saluted. A similar incident occurred a week later at San Diego. 1843 -- China. Sailors and marines from the St. Louis were landed after a clash between Americans and Chinese at the trading post in Canton. 1843 -- Africa. - November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory Coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping. 1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed US forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry. 1846 -- Bear Flag Revolt. 1846-48 -- Mexican-American War After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion. On May 13,1846, declared war with Mexico. 1849 � Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey). In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials. [edit] 1850-1859 1851 -- Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast. 1851 -- Johanns Island (east of Africa). - August. Forces from the US sloop of war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig. 1852-53 -- Argentina. - February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. 1853 -- Nicaragua. - March 11 to 13. US forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. 1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Matthew Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan." 1853-54 -- Ryūkyū and Bonin Islands (Japan). Commodore Matthew Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce. 1854 -- China. - April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife. 1854-58 -- Nicaragua Naval Battles 1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua. 1855 -- China. - May 19 to 21. US forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong. 1855 -- Fiji Islands. - September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for attacks on American residents and seamen. 1855 -- Uruguay. - November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. 1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada. - September 19 to 22. US forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection. 1856 -- China. - October 22 to December 6. US forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag. 1857-58 -- Utah War. 1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander Charles H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, self proclaimed president of Nicaragua, who was losing control of the country to forces financed by his former business partner, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels USS Saratoga, USS Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement. 1858 -- Uruguay. - January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo. 1858 -- Fiji Islands. - October 6 to 16. A marine expedition with the USS Vandalia enacted revenge on natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya. [2] [3] 1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States." 1859 -- Paraguay. Congress authorized a naval squadron to seek redress for an attack on a naval vessel in the Parana River during 1855. Apologies were made after a large display of force. 1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Juan Cortina.[4] 1859 -- China. - July 31 to August 2. A naval force landed to protect American interests in Shanghai. [edit] 1860-1869 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa. - March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives. 1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama. - September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution. 1861-65 -- American Civil War 1863 -- Japan. - July 16. The USS Wyoming retaliated against a firing on the American vessel Pembroke at Shimonoseki. 1864 -- Japan.- July 14 to August 3. Naval forces protected the United States Minister to Japan when he visited Yedo to negotiate concerning some American claims against Japan, and to make his negotiations easier by impressing the Japanese with American power. 1864 -- Japan. - September 4 to 14. Naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands compelled Japan and the Prince of Nagato in particular to permit the Straits of Shimonoseki to be used by foreign shipping in accordance with treaties already signed. 1865-77 -- Post Civil War Reconstruction 1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution. 1866 -- Mexico. To protect American residents, General Sedgwick and 100 men in November obtained surrender of Matamoros, on the border State of Tamaulipas. After three days he was ordered by US Government to withdraw. His act was repudiated by the President. 1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, US forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang. 1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon. 1867 -- Formosa (island of Taiwan) - June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel. 1868 -- Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata). - February 4 to 8, April 4 to May 12, June 12 and 13. US forces were landed to protect American interests during the civil war in Japan. 1868 -- Uruguay. - February 7 and 8, 19 to 26. US forces protected foreign residents and the customhouse during an insurrection at Montevideo. 1868 -- Colombia. - April. US forces protected passengers and treasure in transit at Aspinwall during the absence of local police or troops on the occasion of the death of the President of Colombia. [edit] 1870-1879 1870 -- Mexico. - June 17 and 18. US forces destroyed the pirate ship Forward, which had been run aground about 40 miles up the Rio Tecapan. 1870 -- Hawaiian Islands. - September 21. US forces placed the American flag at half mast upon the death of Queen Kalama, when the American consul at Honolulu would not assume responsibility for so doing. 1871 -- Korea. Shinmiyangyo Battle in Korea - June 10 to 12. A US naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River. 1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama). - May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities between local groups over control of the government of the State of Panama. 1873-96 -- Mexico. United States troops crossed the Mexican border repeatedly in pursuit of cattle and other thieves and other brigands. There were some reciprocal pursuits by Mexican troops into border territory. Mexico protested frequently. Notable cases were at Remolina in May 1873 and at Las Cuevas in 1875. Washington orders often supported these excursions. Agreements between Mexico and the United States, the first in 1882, finally legitimized such raids. They continued intermittently, with minor disputes, until 1896. 1874 -- Hawaiian Islands. - February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king. 1876 -- Mexico. - May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoros, Tamaulipas State, temporarily while it was without other government. [edit] 1880-1889 1882 -- Egypt. - July 14 to 18. American forces landed to protect American interests during warfare between British and Egyptians and looting of the city of Alexandria by Arabs. 1885 -- Panama (Colon). - January 18 and 19. US forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity. 1888 -- Korea. - June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected. 1888 -- Haiti. - December 20. A display of force persuaded the Haitian Government to give up an American steamer which had been seized on the charge of breach of blockade. 1888-89 -- Samoa. - November 14, 1888, to March 20, 1889. US forces were landed to protect American citizens and the consulate during a native civil war. 1889 -- Hawaiian Islands. - July 30 and 31. US forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution. [edit] 1890-1899 1890 -- Argentina. A naval party landed to protect US consulate and legation in Buenos Aires. 1891 -- Haiti. US forces sought to protect American lives and property on Navassa Island. 1891 -- Bering Strait. - July 2 to October 5. Naval forces sought to stop seal poaching. 1891 -- Chile. - August 28 to 30. US forces protected the American consulate and the women and children who had taken refuge in it during a revolution in Valparaiso. 1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States. 1894 -- Brazil. - January. A display of naval force sought to protect American commerce and shipping at Rio de Janeiro during a Brazilian civil war. 1894 -- Nicaragua. - July 6 to August 7. US forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. 1894-95 -- China. Marines were stationed at Tientsin and penetrated to Peking for protection purposes during the First Sino-Japanese War. 1894-95 -- China. A naval vessel was beached and used as a fort at Newchwang for protection of American nationals. 1894-96 -- Korea. - July 24, 1894 to April 3, 1896. A guard of marines was sent to protect the American legation and American lives and interests at Seoul during and following the Sino-Japanese War. 1895 -- Colombia. - March 8 to 9. US forces protected American interests during an attack on the town of Bocas del Toro by a bandit chieftain. 1895-96 -- Venezuela. - Settlement of boundary dispute. 1896 -- Nicaragua. - May 2 to 4. US forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest. 1898 -- Nicaragua. - February 7 and 8. US forces protected American lives and property at San Juan del Sur. 1898 -- Spanish-American War On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection, the Cuban War of Independence against Spanish rule and the sinking of the USS Maine in the harbor at Havana. 1898-99 -- Samoa. Second Samoan Civil War February-May 15, 1899. American and British naval forces landed to protect national interests and to take part in a bloody contention over the succession to the throne. 1898-99 -- China. - November 5, 1898 to March 15, 1899. US forces provided a guard for the legation at Peking and the consulate at Tientsin during contest between the Dowager Empress and her son. 1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes. 1899-1913 -- Philippine Islands. Philippine-American War US forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence during the Philippine-American War. [edit] 1900-1909 1900 -- China. - May 24 to September 28. Boxer Rebellion American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened. 1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama). - November 20 to December 4. Panamanian Revolution US forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances. 1902 -- Colombia. - April 16 to 23. US forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war. 1902 -- Colombia (State of Panama). - September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops. 1903 -- Honduras. - March 23 to 30 or 31. US forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortez during a period of revolutionary activity. 1903 -- Dominican Republic. - March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak. 1903 -- Syria. - September 7 to 12. US forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared. 1903-04 -- Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the US Consul General while he negotiated a treaty. 1903-14 -- Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests. 1904 -- Dominican Republic. - January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting. 1904 -- Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisula dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marines were landed to protect the consul general. 1904 -- Panama. - November 17 to 24. US forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection. 1904-05 -- Korea. - January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A guard of Marines was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War. 1906-09 -- Cuba. - September 1906 to January 23, 1909. US forces sought to protect interests and re-establish a government after revolutionary activity. 1907 -- Honduras. - March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro, Laguna and Choloma. 1909-33 -- Nicaragua. - May 19 to September 4, 1910. Occupation of Nicaragua US forces protected American interests at Bluefields. [edit] 1910-1919 1911 -- Honduras. - January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras. 1911 -- China. As the nationalist revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away, and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. Marines were deployed in November to guard the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere. 1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortes. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action. 1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Canal Zone. 1912 -- Cuba. - June 5 to August 5. US forces protected American interests on the Province of Oriente, and in Havana. 1912 -- China. - August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. US forces protected Americans and American interests during revolutionary activity. 1912 -- Turkey. - November 18 to December 3. US forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during a Balkan War. 1912-25 -- Nicaragua. - August to November 1912. US forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925. 1912-41 -- China. The disorders which began with the overthrow of the dynasty during Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of US interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901. 1913 -- Mexico. - September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife. 1914 -- Haiti.- January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently US naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution. 1914 -- Dominican Republic. - June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone. 1914-17 -- Mexico. Tampico Affair & Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Dolphin affair and Villa's raids (See Pancho Villa Expedition) and included capture of Vera Cruz and later Pershing's expedition into northern Mexico. 1915-34 -- Haiti. - July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. United States occupation of Haiti 1915-1934 US forces maintained order during a period of chronic political instability. 1916 -- China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking. 1916-24 -- Dominican Republic. - May 1916 to September 1924. Occupation of the Dominican Republic American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection. 1917 -- China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis. |
| quote: |
| America was loved, adored, looked up to all that time. AMERICA FRIGGIN' WAS THE PEACE DEAL BROKER BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN IN RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR OF 1905!!! Man, you are gold. |
| quote: |
| I am not saying Russia should isolate itself. There's a difference between sending your aircraft carriers, battleships and troops abroad to suppose instead sending oil/gas, knowledge, economy and political influence. You think people like it when you bomb the fock out of you? Aircraft carriers carry weapons, bombs, missiles for a reason, and its not to keep them forever sealed to their barrels, |
| quote: |
| Well, Russia I think is learning its lesson. Russia's political think-tanks are not dumb, they have more experience and knowledge than you to decide what works for their own country. They dont want to waste money on dumb aggression that Americans are stuck in Iraq right now. They're smarter than you. They want to be neutral for you until its the right time for them to expand militarily at a better time. Right now there are too many countries trying to be cocky on the world stage. Russia is playing smart and concentrating on rebuilding itself, its pride, its image, its people. Bingo! |
quote: Originally posted by Aquadyne
As we can see, US has not been isolationist at all.
Point taken. Actually, after I posted it and immediately left for work, I realized that I definitely made a mistake in my statement, but I never thought it went back that long ago, I remembered the Japanese thing in 1860s. I stand corrected. Though I doubt that being isolated is a bad thing for a country. Sticking your nose in politics where you shouldn't be on the world scene is only a recipe for a problem especially if you lose your grasp on power.
quote:
Loved and adored? Oooookaaaay.
quote:
Yes, you are referring to the phenomenon of "soft power". And "soft power" nowadays is a much more pervasive and effective way of projecting influence. However, soft power needs to be backed up by hard power. No one is saying that the weapons should be used, but the threat of hard power is significant leverage that no nuclear weapon could provide. Furthermore, soft power takes decades to develop and it is a phenomenon unique to every state/culture.
Yes, lets use the soft power of hundreds of aircraft, missiles and other machines to "softly put to sleep" anyone who is willing to resist our advances. Soft power reminds me of some other silly words like replacing suicide bombings with "homicide bombings". I cant imagine how softly can these powerful tools of war can be used. LOL @ "phenomenon unique to every state/culture". You are just blabbering here, you know that aircraft carriers are military weapons designed to kill people, whether you are right on wrong in the situation at hand. And if Russia goes abroad to push its policy as you wish it to do, it will lose support with either Americans, Arabs or both. There is nothing for Russia to gain, other to lose money. Russia will need thousands of troops, lots of money, strategic planning, and many years to achieve even a foothold in Middle East like that of America, and at cost of many lives. You are dreaming, Aquadyne!
quote:
A good example is China, a country that has been aggressively building up its military forces. Even now they are feared, even though they do not even deploy outside of their own borders and have no force projection tools (i.e. blue water navy, inter-continental aircraft) - nonetheless they are feared and respected.
At this point, you're just grabbing on to straws.
China is feared because its the world's largest economy and its army is the largest in the world and has the capability to inflict serious damage on anyone. China has a lot of money and influence in the region because of its sheer size.
Basically, you dont have anything strong to add to support your policy that Russia should start pushing its foreign policy by aicraft carriers. The costs, the achievements, the losses will overshadow any gains because a) Russia has all the resources it needs, b) it is too weak right now to counter America or Arab states, c) it has vast internal issues that need to be tackled, d) its foreign policy within C.I.S. has failed, and its not working with USA, Iran, EU - and you expect then that Russia will succeed ALONE with its aircraft carriers trying to push someone around.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.