• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Kilo_302 Defends The Soviet Empire[ split from] UN is rotten to the core

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor. United States military forces have seen major deployments outside the United States a total of 22 times since 1950. In that period, the USSR deployed outside its borders 6 times. While the US (and the West) obviously have a much better human rights record in their own nations, foreign policy is a much different matter. It would be hard to incriminate the USSR for its foreign adventures when similar American actions are taken into account. It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike. In the US however, military intellectuals throughout the Cold War, most from the RAND Corporation were trying to find ways to actually use nuclear weapons in wartime (Rumsfeld and now his supporters at the Pentagon are still trying to include nuclear weapons as "just another tool").  The massive buildup of US missiles (due to the ficticious "gaps")  obliged the USSR to also increase its arsenal. The continuing trend throughout the Cold War was that of US provocation, and Soviet response. I would argue that today the US is practicing the same tactics with China. By initiating a military alliance with India just last year, the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies. China realizes its position and will not do anything, but this can change quickly if domestic conditions shift towards democracy, and the Chinese people have any say about it. The fact that the Chinese government has so much control over the population has meant that China is extremely stable and predictable, no matter how provocative US moves are. The same goes for the USSR. Soviet leaders knew what "containment" meant, and they knew that to challenge it could mean WWIII, so they didnt. I think we in the West give too much credit to our leaders for avoiding all-out nuclear warfare, and not enough to the cool heads in the USSR.
 

FredDaHead

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey, we have ourselves a Soviet apologist!

Remember a little event that happened in october 1962. I don't remember all the details, but it included moving some nuclear weapons to some island off Florida, I think? Yeah, and, oh yeah, I think it was the Russians that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yeah, that's right, now I remember! The Russians moved nuclear weapons into Cuba and so they could target most of the big US cities, and when the US told them to get them out--I think having nuclear missiles pointed at you from a few hundred kilometers away is a bit threatening, don't you?--the Russians told them to piss off, and kept moving them.

Yeah, totally non-threatening. The Russians were perfect little angels being bullied by the big, bad American Empire!  ::)

And that's without mentionning all the nice peacekeeping the Russians decided to do in Afghanistan. Yeah, totally peace-loving and non-threatening, too! Small-scale and with very limiting ROE too!

Stop blaming the US for everything.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike.

Excuse me!  "To mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike" is in no way a "COUNTERSTRIKE"; it is in fact a "FIRST STRIKE".  That is the only way that they could strike and prevent the US from making the First Strike.  (BY being the First TO STRIKE.)

Along with the Cuban Missile Crisis, that you conveniently forgot all about, you are right out of it. 
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
866
Points
1,040
Gotta love someone who thinks being a behind the scene back-stabbing sneaky bastard is much better than a country that mostly tried it with thier cards on the table......
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
>In that period, the USSR deployed outside its borders 6 times.

What sort of ass-hattery is this counting game you're playing?  The Soviet Union was permanently deployed in the eastern European subjects of its empire, and there was no illusion beyond polite Quisling puppetry that they were there as invited guests.  Get a grip.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Remember a little event that happened in october 1962. I don't remember all the details, but it included moving some nuclear weapons to some island off Florida

I believe that was in response to US missiles being based in Turkey. In fact the Soviets demanded the removal of those US missiles and got what they wanted. Remember, this was also near the height of US missile dominance.

And that's without mentionning all the nice peacekeeping the Russians decided to do in Afghanistan. Yeah, totally peace-loving and non-threatening, too! Small-scale and with very limiting ROE too!

And what do you think Vietnam was?! The Soviets invaded Afghanistan (they were "invited" by an illegitimate government). The United States invaded South Vietnam (they were invited by an illegitimate government). The ROE argument is ridiculous. The American performance in Vietnam in terms of civilian deaths is comparable if not worse than the Soviets in Afghanistan. I don't think many serious people blame the US for the Cold War (I do not) , but they most certainly contributed, being the one of poles in a bipolar world.

Yeah, totally non-threatening. The Russians were perfect little angels being bullied by the big, bad American Empire

While I realize you are being sarcastic, no where in my post do I suggest the Soviets were being bullied by the American Empire. The point I am trying to get across is that the Soviet leadership at most points during the Cold War was rational, and logical, not the hell bent on world domination stereotype that is popular in the West. By being logical I mean that the Soviets were aware of the true "missile gap" that is that the United States possessed many more nuclear weapons than they did until the 1970s. Placing missiles on Cuba made sense, and they got what they wanted from that move, as dangerous as it was.

Leftist-Communist-Stalinist

There has never been a true Communist state. The USSR was never Communist so even if I supported it I could not be called a true Communist. The term Leftist could refer to a Democrat in the United States, or a Green Party member in Canada, or any number of things. I could take from that comment that you are a "rightist"? Suggesting that I am a Stalinist is ridiculous, and offensive. Stalin presided over some of the worst atrocities of the century, and by advocating a more realistic and balanced view of the Cold War am I in no way advocating the slaughter of millions of people.

The Soviet Union was permanently deployed in the eastern European subjects of its empire

This is true, but it does not translate into hostility towards the United States. The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
326
Points
910
Edward Campbell said:
Both Kilo_302 and outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are wrong. 

And going steadily downhill from there, too, I fear.

Kilo_302 spent waaaay to much time listening to the likes of Jim Laxer.

But, it's entertaining, I didn't think anyone subscribed to the Party Line any more.  Great stuff, keep it up Kilo_302 and ignore the carping critics: this place can use a little humour.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
...... The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.

I am sure that the people's of Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, ...........and the list goes on...... all welcomed the Soviet domination of their societies.  [Que Bill Cosbie 'Noah' voice:] Right!
 

FredDaHead

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
This is true, but it does not translate into hostility towards the United States. The Soviet occupation of the East must also be seen through the prism of World War II. No one, not the Americans, the French, the Brits nor the Soviets wanted to see a strong united Germany.

George, you beat me to it, but you forgot Latvia, Belarus, and all the -stan countries (most notably Kazhakstan). DAMN YOU BATMAN!
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
326
Points
910
Kilo_302 said:
I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor.

That is absolutely irrational.

It has no foundation in the historical record.  What on earth do you think was happening in 1945, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and beyond?

That you might say that with even a tiny grain of seriousness indicates that the Canadian education system is an abject failure.

I would edit it as follows:

Kilo_302 said:
I do not think that the USSR can be considered a real aggressor.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And going steadily downhill from there, too, I fear.

Kilo_302 spent waaaay to much time listening to the likes of Jim Laxer.

But, it's entertaining, I didn't think anyone subscribed to the Party Line any more.  Great stuff, keep it up Kilo_302 and ignore the carping critics: this place can use a little humour.

Try as I might, I couldn't find an argument in there. Post one and I would be happy to engage in a proper, and polite debate with you.

As for the all the nations occupied by the USSR, point taken. Obviously not all (if any) welcomed the Soviets. My initial point remains the same however. The Americans are just as responsible (and in many ways more responsible) than the Soviets when it comes to the escalation of the Cold War.

It has no foundation in the historical record.  What on earth do you think was happening in 1945, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and beyond

Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.
 

FredDaHead

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.

So your argument is "the US did some overt stuff, and they did some bad covert stuff, and the USSR did a few overt things"? ..What about the covert actions the USSR undertook? Heck, the Russians are still (presumably) continuing today; see Alexander Litvitenko. (sp?)

You're, by your own admission, comparing apples and bananas. Comparing the number of overt AND covert operations from one party and the number of overt operations from another is not only a bad comparison, it's intellectually dishonest.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Kilo_302: "...the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies."  Such as, say, Russia?  Do elucidate.  And, before India, which other countries contributed to the encirclement--DPRK, Vietnam. Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan--maybe Mongolia is the key encircler? One awaits your geographical counter-value argument since one can see none of  counter-force.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.enchantedlearning.com/asia/china/map_bw.GIF&imgrefurl=http://www.enchantedlearning.com/asia/china/mapquizprintout.shtml&h=444&w=560&sz=13&tbnid=xDhngK4udvN4ZM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchina%2Bmap&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And by the way there is no military alliance between India and the US--can you show otherwise?

Mark
Ottawa
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Excuse me!  "To mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike" is in no way a "COUNTERSTRIKE"; it is in fact a "FIRST STRIKE".  That is the only way that they could strike and prevent the US from making the First Strike.  (BY being the First TO STRIKE.)

Wrong. A first strike capability means a nation can strike first, knowing that any counterstrike from an opposing nation will be not be very effective. The Soviets at this point did not have this advantage. They could never have hoped to knock out the US capacity for a retaliatory strike. All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a first strike.   The United States enjoyed a nearly 10-1 ratio in nuclear weapons over the USSR until the 1960s. At this time, American policy was based on the doctrine of "massive retaliation" which essentially meant that the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely case of a Soviet conventional attack.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
Wrong. A first strike capability means a nation can strike first, knowing that any counterstrike from an opposing nation will be not be very effective. The Soviets at this point did not have this advantage. They could never have hoped to knock out the US capacity for a retaliatory strike. All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a first strike.   The United States enjoyed a nearly 10-1 ratio in nuclear weapons over the USSR until the 1960s. At this time, American policy was based on the doctrine of "massive retaliation" which essentially meant that the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely case of a Soviet conventional attack.


Look who is posting irrationally now.  This; "All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first" sounds like an aggressive "FIRST STRIKE" statement to me.  By the way, your impression of 'first strike' is wrong. 

Makes your statement here a joke:

Kilo_302 said:
Foverf, I have gotten the same thing many a time. That is, rational arguments of mine are replied with insults and suggestions as to my intelligence and political persuasion. I still don't understand what there is to be so defensive about. What's wrong with a healthy debate?

I don't think you are thinking rationally, but then you wouldn't realize that.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
709
Points
1,060
I love that line.  The one about
There has never been a true Communist state
.

The system would be just fine if it wasn't for all those "people".


"Next year in Jerusalem." Jerusalem in the Next World.  The New Jerusalem in Manchester.  When we recover Al Quds.  If only it wasn't for all those people.  ;D :salute:

I'm with Edward.  We need a comedic interlude.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302: "...the US has completed the encirclement of China with US allies."  Such as, say, Russia?  Do elucidate.  And, before India, which other countries contributed to the encirclement--DPRK, Vietnam. Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan--maybe Mongolia is the key encircler? One awaits your geographical counter-value argument since one can see none of  counter-force


Now it should be quite obvious that I was not referring to Mongolia or Myanmar etc . However, there are US bases in the 'stans as we speak. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian and US airbases are mere miles from each other. George W. Bush has been making overtures in Vietnam, and in SE Asia in general.  As far as the India-US defense agreement, it is thus far unofficial. The US and India have signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, even though India is not a signatory to the NPT. The US and India have also begun to hold regular military exercises in the north east of India. I don't know why this would be hard to believe. One would be mistaken to overlook these developments as the United States government itself has identified China as America's main rival. It only makes sense from a realist perspective (which is the perspective American policymakers have largely reverted to since 9/11) to surround your potential adversary with nations friendly to your interests.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Look who is posting irrationally now.  This; "All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first" sounds like an aggressive "FIRST STRIKE" statement to me.  By the way, your impression of 'first strike' is wrong. 

I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
>There has never been a true Communist state.

Yeah, but next Tuesday fer shure.  Sorry 'bout that last multi-megadeath wrong turn on the previous try.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".

You are sooo funny.  This time you made no mention of the Soviets making a strike against the US to prevent the US making a 'First Strike'.  I would suggest you lay off those korner drugs.

Just to keep you in the picture, your previous posts:

Kilo_302 said:
It has long been proven that the "missile gap" and the "bomber gap" were myths. The USSR from the very beginning practiced "minimum deterrence", possessing just enough weapons to mount a counterstrike deadly enough to prohibit the United States from conducting a first strike.

Kilo_302 said:
...... All they were capable of was hitting enough American cities that the US government would not dare strike first. Again, a first strike capability means you are nearly guaranteed that you will not receive any nuclear missiles in retaliation, because you have knocked them all out in a first strike.


But I guess your grammar could be in need of improvement, along with your communications skills.  Reality and Logic are another question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top