PDA

View Full Version : Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike to Preempt West or Cold War II vs WWIII




tangent4ronpaul
06-30-2009, 07:31 PM
Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike to Preempt West

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/index.htm

Washington D.C. May 13, 2005 - The Soviet-led Warsaw Pact had a long-standing strategy to attack Western Europe that included being the first to use nuclear weapons, .... Although the aim was apparently to preempt NATO "aggression," the Soviets clearly expected that nuclear war was likely and planned specifically to fight and win such a conflict.

Plans to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, ostensibly to preempt Western first-use. (Documents Nos. 81, 83)
Soviet expectations that conventional conflicts would go nuclear, and plans to fight and win such conflicts. (Documents Nos. 81, 83)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/doc81.pdf (see page 409+, page 4+ of pdf)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/doc83.pdf (see page 415+, page 1+ of pdf)

Why is this relevant today?

If we look at 2003, right after the invasion of Iraq, the BBC ran a program called “What the World Thinks of America”. It was broadcast worldwide with one exception. No network in the USA carried it. Those that saw it had to find out about and watch it on the Internet. For Russia's part, a diplomat did not have kind things to say. His closing statement was “The United States should never forget that Russia is still a nuclear power”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/2997248.stm

It should be remembered that our invasion a month before, cost Russia, Germany, France and some other countries lucrative oil contracts with Iraq and caused their petrol costs to skyrocket.

Through our continued meddling in other countries affairs, we have seen a series of “color revolutions” and covert paramilitary support from Russia to countries we invaded. Did the cold war ever end? – just because the Berlin wall came down, Russia went through a recession and re-ordered their economic strategy? Did declaring “we won” really change anything? Sure, there was a brief recess – so maybe we should call this Cold War II.

Since about 1995, we have seen the formation of coalitions in Eurasia. Originally for economic support, but these seem to be shifting into a counter-balance for NATO. There have been joint military exercises and a number of these countries are nuclear powers. They are quite frankly tiring of our wars and influence of their governments and culture on their soil as well as installing despots who give us access to their resources at bargain basement prices. This might explain a few things:

Why we or Israel have not invaded or bombed Iraq and there was a “color revolution” instead. With China, Russia, and most of the middle east having their back, the chances of sparking off WWIII were probably too great to risk.

The move to go “green” in this country. With these member countries controlling 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the worlds oil supplies the possibility of being cut off is very real. Especially in the case of a war.

Other aspects of the economic mess we brought upon the world and the worlds reaction by changing the basic currency oil is traded in as well as at least China's and Saudi Arabia's massive gold purchases. Heads up! - the economy is headed for a crash!

This brings us to what might be referred to as fifth generation warfare or possibly an unintended consequence of our current regulatory structure and the resulting design flaws of the adapting business strategy.

Some years ago, I read a SF novel called “The Cool War”. I am currently reading it again. The premise is that “Hot” wars are too dangerous to fight, so covert activities are carried out instead – ones that drag down an adversaries economy. Things that make people sick, encourage absenteeism, strain the health care system... Think bird/swine flu and tainted products coming from China. Is this deliberate or is it a side effect of a flawed regulatory process. We have too much regulation and it's driving our manufacturing capacity to potential enemies. They have little to no regulatory structure and it makes them a job magnet but is perhaps too lax, due to the side effects. Just in time production is another example. Some ability to handle surges in demand provide stability and security. Commercially in the US, we don't have that any more. So are we fighting a fifth generation war or just experiencing the side effects of a flawed regulatory / business paradigm?

On the plus side, these Eurasian coalitions have embraced our flawed business structures and incorporated single points of failure into their economic planning for “efficiency”. Just like our base closure and realignment fiasco. One good attack and we loose our complete capacity for medical care, or logistic repair or ordnance, or ... Didn't your mother teach you to not put all your eggs in one basket? At least we are not alone in this stupidity! It might be the worlds saving grace by making a world war come to a grinding halt REAL FAST!

But coming full circle, do you really think Russia has given up it's first strike protocol, especially with it's navy and the majority of it's military force lies rusting in military bases? Especially with their excellent shelter system, not to mention China's and those of many middle eastern countries?

Reboot country: y/n?
> y
...

-t

Zippyjuan
06-30-2009, 08:02 PM
The US and NATO also planed for and expected to win any nuclear war.

emazur
06-30-2009, 08:04 PM
I think you'll be interested in William Engdahl's (who is on Ron Paul's reading list in The Revolution) views on Russia. Here is an interview he did this week:
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Chossudovsky/2009/06/Chossudovsky_1_062209_100000.mp3

tangent4ronpaul
06-30-2009, 08:06 PM
The US and NATO also planed for and expected to win any nuclear war.

via MAD - putting our silo's in the bread belt and a total FAIL on civil defense?

please explain....

-t

Pod
06-30-2009, 08:09 PM
via MAD - putting our silo's in the bread belt and a total FAIL on civil defense?

please explain....

-t

MAD was just a slogan to appease the public. In reality the policy pursued by US had always been - not MAD - but nuclear supremacy. Somthing it was pulling off succesfuly for the first two decades of the cold war (and later intended to regain through star wars).

tangent4ronpaul
06-30-2009, 10:57 PM
I think you'll be interested in William Engdahl's (who is on Ron Paul's reading list in The Revolution) views on Russia. Here is an interview he did this week:
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Chossudovsky/2009/06/Chossudovsky_1_062209_100000.mp3

Very interesting - listened to it!

thanks - might buy his book.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
06-30-2009, 10:58 PM
MAD was just a slogan to appease the public. In reality the policy pursued by US had always been - not MAD - but nuclear supremacy. Somthing it was pulling off succesfuly for the first two decades of the cold war (and later intended to regain through star wars).

I will be reviewing your posts....

-t

Pod
07-01-2009, 08:30 AM
I will be reviewing your posts....

-t

Am I to understand this as some sort of threat?

http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/05/14/scott-ritter-7/

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 01:04 PM
Am I to understand this as some sort of threat?

http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/05/14/scott-ritter-7/

no - just interest.

but I still think your missing one point - if you nuke the breadbasket, we starve. the only reason for an enemy to do that is you you have missile silos there. we do.

-t

Zippyjuan
07-01-2009, 02:12 PM
We have had our nuclear arsenal dispersed all over the country, including in rural areas, so that it would be difficult for any first strike to take out any significant number of them. Ability to retaliate is an important feature of MAD. The middle of the country is actually a better place to put the nukes- the flight distance to the Soviet Union is less if you send them over the North Pole than across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. We also kept subs armed with nukes within striking range (one Trident submarine was the third most powerful force in the world in terms of destructive power behind the total US and Soviet forces) and rotated them to keep a fresh one in range at all times. We also kept B52 bombers in the air at all times in case of a surprise attack.

Putting them in rural areas also meant less threat to major cities and industrial areas. There were probably other political considerations too. We knew the Soviets had an inferrior nuclear capability but used publicity of their alleged strengths as an excuse to boost our own arms supply. We sought to have the capability of overwhelming superiority to discurage the Soviets from even thinking about a pre-emptive strike.

In the event of a full on nuclear exchange, much of your breadbasket will be contaminated by fallout anyways- even if it is not a direct target.

Acala
07-01-2009, 02:24 PM
Tucson, Arizona was surrounded by something like 18 Titan missile silos. And it is certainly NOT a breadbasket, unless you make cactus bread.

They are all decomissioned now. One of them has been made into a museum. It is very much worth a visit.

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 05:19 PM
We have had our nuclear arsenal dispersed all over the country, including in rural areas, so that it would be difficult for any first strike to take out any significant number of them. Ability to retaliate is an important feature of MAD. The middle of the country is actually a better place to put the nukes- the flight distance to the Soviet Union is less if you send them over the North Pole than across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. We also kept subs armed with nukes within striking range (one Trident submarine was the third most powerful force in the world in terms of destructive power behind the total US and Soviet forces) and rotated them to keep a fresh one in range at all times. We also kept B52 bombers in the air at all times in case of a surprise attack.

Putting them in rural areas also meant less threat to major cities and industrial areas. There were probably other political considerations too. We knew the Soviets had an inferrior nuclear capability but used publicity of their alleged strengths as an excuse to boost our own arms supply. We sought to have the capability of overwhelming superiority to discurage the Soviets from even thinking about a pre-emptive strike.

In the event of a full on nuclear exchange, much of your breadbasket will be contaminated by fallout anyways- even if it is not a direct target.

http://www.webpal.org/d_resources/states/aacont2.jpg

They could have placed them where the fallout wouldn't have laid waste to the breadbasket.

-t

Zippyjuan
07-01-2009, 07:50 PM
I see. According to you, we should not place any missile silos where targeting them would harm your food production. Fine. I would agree with that. I have added that you also want to stay away from industrial and population centers. So where would be good locations for nuclear missile silos? Maybe it would help you to provide a list of where the silos were actually located (some have been shut down and others still in use). What would you think about places like Wyoming? North and South Dakota? Arizona? Washington? Missouri? Nebraska? These are not breadbasket states nor are they upwind from breadbasket states. Check them out on your map. Would it surprise you to learn that these states host the vast majority of our nuclear missile silos?

Link to a list: http://www.siloworld.com/COORDINATES/LOCAL.htm

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 07:58 PM
I see. According to you, we should not place any missile silos where targeting them would harm your food production. Fine. I would agree with that. I have added that you also want to stay away from industrial and population centers. So where would be good locations for nuclear missile silos? Maybe it would help you to provide a list of where the silos were actually located (some have been shut down and others still in use). What would you think about places like Wyoming? North and South Dakota? Arizona? Washington? Missouri? Nebraska? These are not breadbasket states nor are they upwind from breadbasket states. Check them out on your map. Would it surprise you to learn that these states host the vast majority of our nuclear missile silos?

Link to a list: http://www.siloworld.com/COORDINATES/LOCAL.htm

NM, NV and Utah would land most of the lousy stuff on unpopulated sand. Personally I'd vote for putting them in NY and CA for the side effect... Maybe add IL to that list - like upwind from Chicago... But that's just me... If a lot of ppl are going to die - let them be the nanny stateers and socialists/commies.

Yeah - most of those sites ARE the bread basket!

-t

Zippyjuan
07-01-2009, 08:18 PM
Yeah - most of those sites ARE the bread basket!

-t

Not really. And they are downwind from most of the productive states. But in a full nuclear war millions will die anyways.

"Nanny state" California pays more to the government in taxes than it gets back in benefits from the government- in 2005 they came in 43rd out of 50 states in terms of their return on what they contribute in terms of taxes so they are actually helping to support the rest of the country. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html Yeah, things are a mess there right now.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/maps/lgif/m4964l.gif
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/maps/mapgif.asp?mapid=4964

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 08:31 PM
Sweet map - but overlay that with projected fallout areas and I think you just made my point for me.

-t

Zippyjuan
07-01-2009, 08:44 PM
I think I had my wind direction wrong. I was thinking east to west for some reason. I stand corrected. But millions will die before they starve to death so demands for food will also be lower.

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 08:51 PM
I grew up in the mid-west. Where those major clouds start are not major cities - they are silos.

I've driven through parts of that country... farmland, silos. Not a major city around there.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 08:54 PM
http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/USA-Major-Cities.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Largest_US_cities_Map-Persian.jpg/800px-Largest_US_cities_Map-Persian.jpg

-t

tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2009, 08:56 PM
I think I had my wind direction wrong. I was thinking east to west for some reason. I stand corrected. But millions will die before they starve to death so demands for food will also be lower.

Good point!

-t