Please read the following article: Russia prepares for War

There is something very ominous in the wind.

-- Concerned (lifeofliberty@yahoo.com), October 11, 1999

Answers

File this one under all the posts about WW3 because of Kosovo. Really stretchin on this one.

-- Whocares (justmore@rumor.com), October 11, 1999.

Just more rumor? What, facts aren't good enough for you?

-- Awake (revelations16@hotmail.com), October 11, 1999.

Russia's been preparing for war with the US since 1945.Those 20,000 tanks and 30,000 APCs; how they gonna get here, drive across the Bering Strait? If Russia gets tied down in a war with us,the Chinese will send 50 or 75 million troops across the Ussiri River and take Siberia. China would much rather have Siberia then North America;( or even Taiwan), it's closer and has more untapped natural resources than any area in the world. The Chinese, ( and Japanese), have coveted Siberia for decades! Also,Islamic rebellion would break out not just in Chechnya, but in all of Russian Central Asia including Kazakhstan where much of the Russian space and missile program is based.Most of the natural resources of Russia; oil gas, minerals, timber, etc. are located either in Siberia or Islamic Central Asia.The Russian Generals know this and are not stupid!They also know what one Trident would do to Russia; we've got 11 of them.

-- Ralph Kramden (and@awaywego.com), October 11, 1999.

Hey guess what...if we go to war, we go to war. Not much use in WORRYING ABOUT IT. I suggest some of you go rent the movie RED DAWN this week. That is the only movie I can think of that is fairly modern (80's i think) that addresses the subject of the US getting attacked.

Count me in as a "wolverine" !

HOWEVER....i agree with Mr. Kramden

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 11, 1999.

I agree with Cory (again), but just came across this....

RUSSIA TO DEPLOY NEW NUKES IN DECEMBER October 11, 1999 The World Tribune reported: "Russia plans to deploy a second batch of its new Topol-M nuclear missiles in the first half of December. A second Strategic Rocket Forces regiment equipped with land-based Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles will assume full combat readiness in the first half of December this year, deputy Defense Minister Col.-Gen. Alexander Kosovan told a news conference. The RIA news agency quoted Kosovan, deputy defense minister in charge of military construction and housing, as saying that the first 10 Topol- M missiles were installed in their silos last December. The Topol-M, known to the West as the SS-27, is slated to become the backbone of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russian officials said last month that Moscow had eight years at most to replace its aging nuclear arsenal before most of it becomes obsolete. Kosovan said two missile early warning systems were near completion and a number of air and naval bases had been repaired this year..."

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), October 11, 1999.

Those tanks and apc's are being readied for Europe not the U.S. Russia wants Europe not the U.S. In order to take Europe, Russia must first take out the U.S.' military ability to stop it.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 11, 1999.

BB is right.

Think nukes and itty bitty lethal germs.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

As stupid as you people might want to believe the Russians are, I still dont think they want to use nukes. The use nukes..everyone uses them..period. End of the planet.

What good us Europe when the globe is a tater tot?

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 11, 1999.

Russia restarting their draft and calling up medical personnel might have an awful lot to do with their ongoing military activity in Chechnya. I see it as a lot more to do with things than any possible Y2K war plans against us.

They're going into an even worse situation than they had in Afgahnistan. And that was the Soviet version of Viet Nam, heavy casualties included. I think they're gonna need every body they can grab for cannon-fodder and certainly will need lots of medical personnel.

Now in Chechnya they face a ground force as well armed as the Russian Army. The Russians do have the advantage of air superiority but it won't do them much good when they send their ground troops into the field and the Chechnians start to wage guerilla war against them like the Mujahadin did.

I would have thought that somebody in the Russian military would have learned a lesson with the Afgahns and in round one with the Chechnians.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), October 11, 1999.

Do you people think the US government is the only one that knows how to spin events and manipulate perception? The Russians invented spin. Does anyone really believe that Russia couldn't beat Chechnya if they wanted to? Use some common sense, folks. Look at the facts and make a decision based on what the Russians are doing, not what they have been saying!

If we make it to January 1, 2000 without being nuked by the Russians, I will be very surprised and very thankful. But for what it's worth, I expect Russia to attack us sometime in December, probably in the first two weeks of the month. If I'm wrong, I will relish the scorn and I-told-you-so's that will follow. But all the signs are there, for those who have an eye to see.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 11, 1999.

Nabi: You left out one small detail - what's to prevent the subs from then unleashing on Moscow?

-- a (a@a.a), October 11, 1999.

WW, Did you read the article linked above? I can't believe you did and posted what you did. What Russia is doing to mobilize is way beyond what is needed in Chechnya.

Nabi, nobody is listening my friend. I don't know what it will take. Be patient. Keep explaining as best you can. Maybe we can help the lurkers GI. Unlike you, I hold that the last two weeks will be the critical time frame. That will be the time of greatest panic and confusion.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 11, 1999.

Apparently my last post was written in invisible ink. Lets try it again (for the lurkers of course):

Nabi & BB: You left out one small detail - what's to prevent the subs from then unleashing on Moscow?

-- a (a@a.a), October 11, 1999.

Nabi doesn't have an answer for that because all the right wingers over at WND didn't explain that part. They'll have to figure out a way to say that Clinton is going to turn off the submarines. Check back for next week's column.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 11, 1999.

Hey submarine experts, I was under the impression that it's the prez who now has that control. The same guy who has the standing order that we do not fire back if we perceive incoming missiles...who ordered that we are to 'sustain' a first hit. My guess is he will feel the pain and capitulate. No tater tot that way.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), October 12, 1999.

Gee Mumzie, d'ya think dey might lawnch AFTER da firs hit, or just sit deer wit der thumb up der ass???

-- @ (@@@.@), October 12, 1999.

'a' You must not remember the previous threads where the sub issue was dealt with conclusively by Nik and Nabi. I could not find the info in the archives. But I will offer the following:

-From Ruddy's 60 pg. 'Risk Assessment of Nuclear Attack'

"With the U.S. prevented from launching on warning, a Russian first strike could wipe out two of the three legs of America's strategic defense triad: land-based missiles and strategic bombers.

At any given time, six of America's 18 ballistic missile submarines are in port and would probably be destroyed in a Russian first strike under the Clinton doctrine. All that would be left to defend America would be 12 ballistic submarines with 180 megatons of warheads. That's over less than 50% of the 400 megatons required under MAD to deter Russia.

Given Russia's missile defense system, modernized weapons, and vast system of underground shelters, it is easy to see why Russia might find launching a first strike against America in 1999 tempting and any losses they would suffer "acceptable".

Also Russia has between 10k-12k anti-ballistic missiles ringing Russia, controlled by 18 battle management radar systems. The only possible use for this system is to neutralize a nuclear counterattack by the U.S.

And consider this...The "Times of London" reported that Britain's Royal Navy was concerned about 'Russian nuclear hunter-killer submarines' stalking British Trident subs operating off Britain's coasts. The British Navy described these subs as "larger, quieter and more deadly than anything Western navies can put to sea." Both British and U.S. military experts have been astounded by new Russian, super-silent technology that allows their new submarines to avoid American sensors and early warning systems. Gone are the days of the big, noisy Russian subs. (How many of the 12 at sea are being followed and targeted even now?)

The TIMES also disclosed that Russia had deployed a new "Akula-class" submarine that carries SS-21 nuclear missiles aimed at American targets. The head of U.S. Naval Intelligence, Admiral Mike Cramer, said the new submarine "has demonstrated a capability that has never been demonstrated before to us..."

Hope that helps you 'a'.

@, why don't you post something that reveals some intelligence on the subject instead of running your mouth.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 12, 1999.

@, I was upset at first by your sarcastic tone, but then I realized how my post must have sounded. By submarine experts, I honestly meant, if there are any out there, please address this. I didn't mean it as a sarcastic response to you or anyone else. It's been a long day here. My Dad just had cancer surgery and we waited hours for test results that came back pretty good. So I'm very tired but very thankful. I really know little personally about the sub issue, but was under the impression I mentioned above. My opinion is greatly affected by the order from our prez to sustain the first hit. I just have to ask... WHY.

bb, thanks for more great info!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), October 12, 1999.

PS, I also read that the military 'experts' informed the prez that we would probably be too crippled to muster much of a 'back at you'.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), October 12, 1999.

Mumzie,

Thanks for explaining that. Actually, based on some of our previous conversations I did jump to the conclusion that you were being sarcastic. Understood. Hope your Dad has a speedy recovery. Mine has cancer as well, but he's just stalling it off with chemo. Life sucks.

Well, it seems that the question has been answered. IMHO I believe that the 400 megatons will be enough to boil their vodka. I myself am not too worried just yet and I think a lot of this paranoid propaganda is politically motivated. We are all entitled to our own beliefs of course, but I sure hope you are wrong.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 12, 1999.

Correction. Meant to say of course that the 180 megatons would be enough to fry their caviar... well, at least make them think twice!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 12, 1999.

Mumsie, I am glad for the good reports. May God grant you insight into His perfect plan. Rom. 8:28. b

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 12, 1999.

"With the U.S. prevented from launching on warning, a Russian first strike could wipe out two of the three legs of America's strategic defense triad: land-based missiles and strategic bombers" Land based maybe but why bombers? How could an attack wipe out bombers? Please explain.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 12, 1999.

Maria,

I'm not the expert you are on this topic, but I'll take a stab at detailing why our bomber force will likely be taken out by a Russian first strike.

During the height of the Cold War, we had bombers constantly loaded with nuclear weapons on standby 24 hours a day, ready to retaliate should a strike be detected. Now that the Cold War is over and Russia is our "friend," it is my understanding that we know longer have such measures in place.

Just how fast can a bomber be armed with nuclear weapons and readied to retaliate?

Again, I don't know for sure, but I would bet it's longer than the 30 minutes it would take for the Russian missiles to detonate on our air bases where the bombers are stationed. Therefore, unless Yeltsin calls Clinton and gives him at least several hours of warning before a strike, our bombers would most likely be destroyed on the ground, waiting for their nuclear ordinance to be loaded and armed.

Just MHO...

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

I think your information is wrong. We only had to dismantle some of our forces, not all.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 12, 1999.

Hi Maria, Going for your daily troll again I see?

I knew there was something about you I couldn't put my finger on. So you are from Philly. Well, so am I. Grew up in the Northeast and graduated from Geo.Wash. H.S. (believe it or not) in '69. And you?

How 'bout them Eagles whupping those cowboys? Did you see the game?

Oh yeah, the bombers will be taken out by Spetsnaz commandos with their suitcase nukes, as well as air bases being targeted by 'incoming'.

In brotherly love, BB

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 12, 1999.

Ok BB I'll bite. I went to Girl's High (when it was all girls - I understand that it's now co-ed - what a shame), graduated in 71, then on to Temple. Didn't see the game but I sure do hate those cowboys (uh-oh just pissed off a number of people on this forum); glad they won.

Suit case nukes against the bombers, not a chance.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 12, 1999.

Maria, No, they won't use nukes just for bombers, but they would for big air bases. They have other things for small airfields, bases and individual bombers

Hey maybe we danced at the Blvd. dance or St. Matt's. Did you ever go? Man, it is a small world....and getting smaller by the day.

Girls high was Central, right? Are you still in Philly? Just curious.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 12, 1999.

Maria wrote: "I think your information is wrong. We only had to dismantle some of our forces, not all."

Maria, I want to clarify your objection to my last post about the vulnerabilities of our nuclear bomber force.

Are you saying that the USAF still has long-range bombers (B-52s, B-1s, or B-2s) loaded with nuclear weapons flying missions 24 hours a day?

Or are you saying that, at a minimum, the USAF has long-range bombers loaded with nuclear weapons sitting on the runways, ready to take off immediately if a strike is detected?

What is the source of your information, if your answer is "yes" to either of these questions?

If you concede that we DO NOT currently have these conditions in the USAF, can you tell me how long it would take to equip a long-range bomber with nuclear weapons, arm the weapons, fuel the bombers, and launch them for a retaliatory strike on Russia/China?

Would the President have to give the order to arm these bombers with nuclear weapons?

How long would this take?

Per his own guidelines, would President Clinton have to verify that we had indeed been attacked before these bombers could be armed with nuclear ordinance?

Your answers to these questions will better enable me to understand why you think my information is wrong, Maria. And I know how much you value being able to help me learn about military issues. Thank you in advance.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

OK I'll try another angle...

It is much, much more likely that what we are seeing is posturing for the post y2k restructuring that follows the world wide economic collapse. The Russian elite don't want to live in the ruins of a world decimated by nukes any more than we do, unless they're insane. And they not insane, they're stupid and greedy like the rest of humanity. But not stupid enough to pull the Mutual Assured Destruction trigger.

The only nukes I see in our future are from accidents and terrorists, and lessor countries such as Israel, India, etc.

Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I make more sense than Nyquist. And I've got Maria on my side. :)

-- a (a@a.a), October 12, 1999.

a,

MAD only works if we have the ability to retaliate with a significant portion of our nuclear arsenal. With Clinton's "no firing until we know we've been hit" policy, a massive Russian/Chinese first strike would most likely eliminate or severely limit our ability to strike back.

Russia is positioning itself for the coming economic fallout??? LOL! Their civilian economy is DOA now; it will be a stinking, rotten corpse after the Y2K debacle decimates them even further. They have little to lose and much to gain by taking us out.

Of course I could be wrong about all of this, but one thing strengthens my position: Maria disagrees with me.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

a,

I thought you were a Gi, now I wonder. You have seen all that Milne has posted on the coming failures in the Russian infrastructure. You have seen the numerous articles on how far the military is behind on its remediation efforts, so why don't you GI on a VERY REAL possibility of a December attack?

You offer no valid evidence to the contrary at all. Just the same MAD crap all the denialists come up with as their only defense. Saying you make more sense than Nyquist in a three sentence paragraph is worth Nabi's LOL. Here's mine ...LOL.

Ask yourself these three questions and be sincere in answering them:

1) Is Russia's infrastructure and military y2k compliant?

2) Are there building evidences that Russia is preparing for war?

3) Could Russia win a preemptive first strike?

If the answer to the first is no then you can count on the second being yes. If the first is yes, then the second can be debated, especially on the timing of an attack. Certainly, December would hold no weight.

That leaves us with the third question. That is what is debatable. That is where the real argument is. You seem to indicate that the subs assure MAD. I used to believe that. Now I know that Russia has a handle on our subs and their launches. Our subs will not stop them.

C'mon 'a'. Almost every GI on this forum is open to the possibility of a December attack because they Get it on y2k. Y2k is the tripwire.

As far as the insanity angle which you have fallen back on I would say this. You are quite right that a nuclear attack is insane, ruthless, evil and yes, stupid. Soviet leaders are thugs but they are worse than thugs....they are possessed by the 'evil' one. Only those who understand that there is a real evil spirit in the world can explain the madness and evil in the world. What keeps me from being in denial and running into a mushroom cloud instead of away from it, is my faith that something very wonderful will come after. Peace

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 13, 1999.

Nabi, to answer your question in short, yes. We still have a bomber fleet. I won't go into what's on them or how many or where or how long it takes to get them off the runway. But I will point out that you don't need to arm the nuke, you just need to get off the runway to survive an attack. Bombers are an important part of the triad because they are recallable. Nothing says that when bombers take off they are launching. The NCA doesn't need to give the order on bombers, scrambling happens lots of times and scrambling doesn't imply "launch order". Scrambling is survival, the launch comes later. Now do you get it? That statement about the Prez not doing launch on warning doesn't mean our bombers just sit. It also doesn't mean that our complete land based force dies either. You guys know about probabiilities don't you?

BB, I was specifically talking to that statement. Now you're into a coordinated attack. We have to see more movement than just the launch of russian icbms. "Terrorists", or russian acting in a similar mode, must be positioned for these suitcase nuke at big air bases (where bombers are), not small fields (I wasn't talking about small fields either). This mobilization would definitely be noticed and represents strategic warning not tactical warning (don't know if you were on the thread where I discussed the difference). Big difference in your statement and the statement I quoted above about the two legs of the triad.

BB, Girl's high was the female version of Central (which I understand is not there anymore). No, I went to other dances (that brings me back a few years), one being Jerry Blavet (spelling?), remember him? I moved out a while ago but visit family still there.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 1999.

Nabi wrote, "but one thing strengthens my position: Maria disagrees with me". You need to apologize to me. You obviously can't read, I proved it, and you continue to make these kinds of statements. You wished you had the info I have. You are a little weasle. Please ignore my previous post. I wouldn't give you the time of day now with your pissy attitude.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 1999.

The Geator with the heater....he's in S. Jersey now.

Maria, Nabi has been nice to you actually. You sound awful grumpy. Sounds like you need to do a little bristol stomp.

The bombers will never get off the runways. The Russians have devised a plan that when the attack with NBC weapons begins from within our borders, everyone will be looking for Osama bin Laden. The bombers will not scramble because of it. As part of this preliminary attack, the three radar command and control centers that monitor incoming will be knocked out. All Russia needs is 35 minutes of confusion and misdirection to allow their missiles to hit.

Get ready Maria, this is not a drill. I pray to God you are right. There is no one who hopes he is more wrong than me.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 13, 1999.

OK, fine, but what happens then? Do the Russians just move into the USA? So they don't have to hassle with the slow-build of capitalism, just have to figure out a way man the factories and produce confident consumers?

I never mess with military threads and I'll never do it again if somebody can just explain to me what's in it for Russia to take us out or even cripple us? Or even start shit with us?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 13, 1999.

BB&Nabi: For Russia to nuke the US, Satan himself would have to be in the Kremlin and last time I checked CNN, it was only inhabited by us lowly humans. So I don't think it works that way. You nuke people who are threatening to destroy you or your pals, not folks that are giving you money and providing a safe place for your investments.

The cold war ended in a stand down of the Soviet Union. Now, I will definitely agree they seem to be regrouping and are indeed dreaming of a return to world dominance. But the future is a global community, not a planet turned into a Tater-Tot, as another astute poster commented.

I think the possibility of a nuclear detonation or war is very real, but not from Russia in 45 days (we should be sharing early warning data by then anyway). More important concerns I have (in order of severity) are economic collapse, y2k breakdown of information systems (including nuke and chemical plant accidents), warfare and terrorism, and natural disasters.

In my most likely future, I envision a depression worse than the 30's culminating within 10 years with one world government. Guns will be outlawed, it will be a much different world, and a lot of people will have died of violence, starvation, disease, wars, etc. But Russia will not nuke us.

I'll throw in a new wrinkle for you also: I have a feeling that during this period, something absolutely fantastic and totally unprecedented will occur. Religious folks like youself will experience it as the "Second coming of Christ". Technically minded right-brainers will see it as "contact with extraterrestrials". And strange individuals like me will call it what the force of evolution looks like to the conscious mind.

Note that all of this is still roughly consistent with biblical prophecy. I think Revelation is synchronistically significant, but I don't believe it should be interpreted verbatim.

-- a (a@a.a), October 13, 1999.

Hi Lisa,

OK, fine, but what happens then? Do the Russians just move into the USA?

YES THEY DO. IN CONCERT WITH THE CHINESE. THE CHINESE WILL MOVE INTO WESTERN PORTS AND THROUGH MEXICO. RUSSIANS WILL ENTER THROUGH ALASKA AND CANADA. THEY WILL BE MET WITH RESISTANCE FROM REMAINING AMERICANS WHO WILL EVENTUALLY BE VICTORIOUS. NYQUIST ESTIMATES THAT 60 MILLION AMERICANS WILL SURVIVE A HORIFIC NBC ATTACK. THERE IS NO WAY THAT rUSSIAN AND CHINESE COULD OVERCOME THESE TICKED OFF AMERICANS.

So they don't have to hassle with the slow-build of capitalism, just have to figure out a way man the factories and produce confident consumers?

IT IS DEBATABLE WHAT RUSSIA AND CHINA WANT OUT OF A DESTROYED AMERICA. SOME THINK THEY WANT TO PRESERVE OUR BREAD BASKET. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING ELSE THEY WANT. MOST FACTORIES ARE OUTSIDE AMERICA. AND IF THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT THEY WILL HAVE EUROPE'S BREADBASKET.

I never mess with military threads and I'll never do it again if somebody can just explain to me what's in it for Russia to take us out or even cripple us? Or even start shit with us?

LISA, RUSSIA WANTS WORLD DOMINATION. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. THEIR MAIN GOAL IS EUROPE. THEY COULD TAKE EUROPE TODAY BUT FOR NATO. WHO IS THE MAIN NATION AT THE CENTER OF NATO? THE U.S. IF THE U.S. MILITARY IS TAKEN OUT NATO IS GUTTED AND COULD NEVER STOP RUSSIA. MY QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER RUSSIA/CHINA KNOCKS OUT OUR MILITARY AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND RUSSIA BLACKMAILS EUROPE INTO SUBMISSION. CAN RUSSIA AND CHINA COEXIST? I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THEY TRUST EACH OTHER....EVEN NOW. THIS DISTRUST MAY SAVE US SOMEHOW FROM THIS NIGHTMARE SCENARIO EVER STARTING.

I SHARE YOUR INCREDULOUS FEELINGS THAT SOMETHING THIS DIABOLICAL COULD HAPPEN. I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I BELIEVE IN AN 'EVIL SPIRIT' THAT COULD POSSESS MEN TO PLAN SUCH CARNAGE. HISTORY SHOWS THAT MEN ARE CAPABLE OF SUCH A THING. LOOK AT HITLER, STALIN JUST IN OUR CENTURY.

IF YOU ARE A PERSON OF FAITH, PLEASE JOIN US IN PETITIONING GOD FOR MERCY ON OUR NATION. ONLY HIS HAND OF PROTECTION CAN HELP US.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 13, 1999.

WHY CANT WE GIVE THEM THEIR OWN BREADBASKET? I SAW SOME NICE ONES IN WALLY WORLD ON SALE

-- REAPER (@GRIM.COM), October 13, 1999.

'a' wrote: "Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I make more sense than Nyquist. And I've got Maria on my side. :)"

To which I replied, "Of course I could be wrong about all of this, but one thing strengthens my position: Maria disagrees with me."

Maybe I should have put a smiley face :-) in my statement somewhere to show that I was JOKING about the prospect of a doomer (a) and a polly (Maria) agreeing with one another and the doomer using that to bolster his position. I personally thought that was pretty funny, given their polar opposite positions on the severity of Y2K.

Unfortunately, I wasn't explicit enough that this was an attempted joke, for which Maria wrote: "You obviously can't read, I proved it, and you continue to make these kinds of statements. You wished you had the info I have. You are a little weasle. Please ignore my previous post. I wouldn't give you the time of day now with your pissy attitude."

Maria, I am sorry that I offended you with my attempt at humor. I'm more sorry that you are so eager to be offended and that you apparently have absolutely no sense of humor.

BTW, it's "weasel."

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Hey BB, what does BB stand for.."Blind and Brainless"?

You actually believe all that crap that Nyquist is pushing on you?

Bwaaaah haaaaa haaaa hahha ha ha !!!

Look at him.. he's a frickin Yuppie kid still wet behind the ears. What the f**k does he know. His number one objective, along with all the greedy scum over at WND, is to get Democrats out of the White House so that they can give the corporate establishment carte blanche sanctions to run rampant over the citizens of this country. They just want to finish what Reagan started so that Nyquist and his Yuppie friends can sit on a beach in Hawaii sipping Pina-Coladas while you sweat your ass off to put money in their banks. Boy they sure got you to take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. They got you and some of these other loony tunes so paranoid of Clinton that you're probably hiding out in your basement cuz you think he's working with the Russkies, getting ready to drop the bomb on us. Sorry to destroy your delusions, but the opposite is closer to the truth. Judging by the way these jerks are undermining the security of our country with all of this Russian fear-mongering propaganda, I would say that THEY are the communists you should really be afraid of.

Do us a favor, get a grip on yourself, and quit trying to scare people on this forum with this load of crap.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 13, 1999.

@, Since I don't respect you, I don't feel the need to respond to your neurotic postings. Again you offer nothing of intelligence. Why don't you go back to the prostitution thread where you were more in your element.

"It's not paranoia when your fears are based on facts." -Tom Sullivan

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 13, 1999.

Let the nukes fall where they will. If any country has earned it's destuction, it's this one. Hypocrisy and blatant wickedness abound. May the Eternal have mercy on His wheat, which is overgrown with tares.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Bwahhh hah ha haa ha!!!

You don't respect me BB? Aaaawww, geeeez, now I'm hurt.

Neurotic postings??? You come out here posting to the entire world that you have factual evidence that Russia is going to launch 400 megatons of nukes at us, then they are somehow going to drive 30,000 tanks across the ocean and invade us, and you call MY posts NEUROTIC??

Bwaaaahahhhhha ahhhahhha hha ahha haaaaa haa!!!! OMIGOD! Please stop, my stomach is starting to hurt from laughing so much!!! BWaaaahh HAA ha!!

Ok, I think I can type again now,.. wheeeew, you're killing me..

Ok, then you said...

""It's not paranoia when your fears are based on facts." -Tom Sullivan"

First of all, I have not a clue who Tom Sullivan is, but I do agree with the fellow. Problem is that you are speculating about things that are not even close to facts...look at the title of the article by Nyquist: "Dark RUMORS from Russia"!! And even though you used a different name, it's obvious that you are the one who started this post. What a joke... you say "look at the facts" and then you put up a link to an article titled "rumors". You ARE blind and brainless!!! Even Nyquist isn't stupid enough to try to claim he has any evidence of this hallucination!

Finally, you also said;

"I don't feel the need to respond"

Well, to be honest BB, that doesn't suprise me a bit, because you don't have anything credible to go on.. you're just fear mongering, and I for one ain't buyin it. Halloween is coming soon, maybe then you'll have better luck at playing boogeyman!! Bwahh ha ahh haaa ha!

Listen kid, no hard feelings ok, I'm just asking that you do your homework before you start telling people they are going to get nuked within 2 months. If you hadn't started yelling at Lisa a ways back I might not have even jumped in. Via con dios, amigo.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 14, 1999.

@, I told you already once... what you have to say doesn't interest me...I just consider the source.

"Better to keep quiet and be thought ignorant, then to open the mouth and remove all doubt." -Ancient Proverb

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 14, 1999.

"Better to keep quiet and be thought ignorant, then to open the mouth and remove all doubt." -Ancient Proverb

I agree absolutely. It's a shame it didn't occur to you before you started this thread.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 14, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

It is not necessary to demonize Russians to fear that they may attack us with nuclear weapons. They are people, just as we are. Let's not forget, the United States is the only country with a proven willingness to use these horrible bombs.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 14, 1999.

@, When you learn some manners and act like a man we'll talk.

Lisa, I trust that you understand my caps were not an indication of 'yelling' as @ suggests. It was THE WAY I used to differeniate between your pasted words and mine. B

Dancr,

I am not demonizing the Russian people, just the Russian leaders. And they don't need me to demonize them. They are doing it to themselves. By demonizing America, you have fallen for their propaganda:

Believing Russian propaganda

NATO's greatest mistake, however, was in alienating the Russian people. The radical nationalists and Communists in the Russian Duma depicted the NATO campaign as an act of aggression. On the surface, NATO's action was open to misrepresentation. Although NATO meant to do good, the entire action appeared to be in bad faith. Clinton and Secretary of State Albright acted in a high-handed way. They were insulting to the Russians. Their speech was condescending. This added to the appearance of bullying a weak Slavic country. In this way Clinton enraged the Russian masses.

The West's greatest ally during the Cold War was the Russian people. They were oppressed by a truly evil government. Keeping their friendship was a wise act of policy. The Russian generals could not wage war on the West as long as the people of Russia held the West in high regard. But in a stupid attempt to mount a white horse and stop a nasty dictator, NATO destroyed its credibility as a defensive alliance.

Please, don't believe the slanders of Russia's rabid nationalists and Communists. NATO is not an aggressive alliance bent on global domination. It is, instead, a ship of fools on a peace-keeping mission in the Balkans. In pursuing this foolish policy, both the United States and NATO have failed to solve the basic ethnic problems of Yugoslavia. The bombing was stupid, it cost lives, and it didn't solve anything. Having said all of that, we must nonetheless respect those European and American leaders who -- like Ambassador Zimmermann -- out of misguided humanitarian feelings, urged the tragic intervention.

If Russian propaganda suggests that America is a global bully, intent on destroying and looting Russia then Americans -- of all people -- should not believe it. It is by accusing America and maligning NATO that Russia's leaders pave the way to the next world war. It is not a war that America wants.

In Russia, the same cannot be said.

On Oct. 11 the Russian defense ministry newspaper, Krasnaya Zvezda, published a draft version of Russia's new military doctrine. The draft statement acknowledges Russia's right to use nuclear weapons in a first strike. The document also suggests that America is Russia's most dangerous enemy.

Russia's previous military doctrine, put forward when Russia was trying to extract Western concessions in arms control talks, was never fully unveiled -- and for good reason. Russian war doctrine has always been a nuclear war fighting one. Unlike Russia, the West is incapable of imagining nuclear war in rational military terms. The United States has never prepared to fight and win a nuclear war. We have neither civil defense or ABM defense for our people. Russia has both of these advantages. Why? Because unlike America, Russia has been preparing to fight and win a Third World War since 1955.

Colonel-General Valery Manilov of the Russian General Staff was responsible for drafting Russia's new military doctrine. He spoke of the significance of "Recent events, including in the Balkans" as having a significant impact on the doctrine. In other words, if Russia attacks the United States with nuclear weapons they will cite the Balkan tragedy as an example of America's "imperialist policy." They will claim that America is an "evil empire."

According to Russia's new war doctrine, the world is suffering under the "unipolar" domination of a single superpower -- America. The Russian General Staff believes that "social progress, stability and international security can only be guaranteed in the framework of a multipolar world. ..." In other words, America should be demoted from its status. Its nuclear missiles should be done away with. If social progress is to occur, the United States cannot remain the dominant superpower.

Yevgeny Volk of the Heritage Foundation in Moscow says that this doctrine is "a return to the Soviet pattern ... whereby the West was regarded as an alien entity which always jeopardized Russian national interests."

The warmongers in Russia say that NATO is led by warmongers. The butchers of Beijing say that America deserves another Pearl Harbor. The generals in Russia and China intend to justify their war of mass destruction when it comes. First you criminalize your opponent. Then you exterminate him.

Colonel-General Manilov, charged with authoring the new Russian military doctrine, sees foreign hands in the funding and training of rebel groups like those in Chechnya and Dagestan, where the Russian Army is engaged in battle. What "foreign hands" do you suppose he is referring to? And how long will it be until the Kremlin starts to mumble about CIA complicity in the terrorist bombings which have killed 300 Russian civilians in recent weeks?

That's right. Blame America. Believe all the Russian propaganda you please. It will only work to seal your fate forever.

J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins of the Fourth World War.'

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 14, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I said: It is not necessary to demonize Russians to fear that they may attack us with nuclear weapons. They are people, just as we are. Let's not forget, the United States is the only country with a proven willingness to use these horrible bombs.

BB said: I am not demonizing the Russian people, just the Russian leaders. And they don't need me to demonize them. They are doing it to themselves. By demonizing America, you have fallen for their propaganda...

I can't say that I've ever come across messages advanced by Russian leaders. I may be fooling myself, but I actually believe that I came up with my comment all on my own. Russian leaders, also, are human beings, just like you.

I don't state that America is, "possessed by the evil one," which are the words that you used to describe Russian leaders. I merely aluded to the fact that the United States has already used these weapons. Ignoring that fact is not going to help in understanding how "enemy" nations might act and why.

I agree with you that a nuclear exchange is highly likely. It's not at all obvioous to me from which location the next nuke will originate.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 14, 1999.

Dancr,

I posted that article that explains my response to you. It also explains why I 'demonize' the Russian leaders and not the American or NATO leaders. I don't buy into Russian propaganda.

The issue is whether America is planning a first strike or Russia is? You state you're not sure. I say if it happens it will come from Russia first. They have a cruel history of ruthless murder. In saying this, I don't mean to portray American leaders without sin. They are quite capable of evil themselves. But the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction is clearly coming these days from the communists, not America.

If you disagree with this we will have to agree to disagree.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 14, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

BB, I don't know quite what to make of your lines: "The issue is whether America is planning a first strike or Russia is? You state you're not sure." Your question mark has me confused. Are you asking if this is the issue, or are you stating that it is, or are you suggesting that I have defined the issue in these simple terms? I have not, and I also did not express an opinion about that. The fact is that either of these countries could be planning a first strike. It is also possible that neither of them is, or most probably both.

You seem to be saying that the United States would never strike first, because even though American leaders are "quite capable of evil," they are not "insane, ruthless,  stupid" and evil to the point of being "possessed by the 'evil' one." This is the part that I question. It is not necessary to make a huge leap into religious mumbo jumbo to suppose that someone might actually push that button. To find someone capable of unleashing such horror, recognizing that so far we are the only ones who have used these weapons in war, we only have to look into the mirror. And the other guy is the same as we.

The fact that a country devotes an enormous percentage of its budget to providing a vast network of underground shelters for its citizens is not evidence that they are planning to strike anyone. It is evidence that they fear being struck, and rightfully so! On the other hand, any nation in which leaders actively discourage citizens from prudent self-protection against nuclear fallout, even though "enemy" nations possess huge stocks of nuclear weapons, might well be suspected of foolishly relying on their own first strike capability.

The moral for us as individuals is that we need to have already provided our selves and our families with fallout shelters. Most of us have not. It's rather late in the game to begin building them now. The best we can do at this point is obtain enough KI for our loved ones, try to get gas masks for protection against biological and chemical events, purchase tyvek for making fallout suits, and plan how we will make expedient shelters, when needed. These are not high cost or high effort measures. Recognizing that these protections are a far cry from what is needed, we should also be very careful to avoid saber rattling.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 16, 1999.

BB, I don't know quite what to make of your lines: "The issue is whether America is planning a first strike or Russia is? You state you're not sure." Your question mark has me confused. Are you asking if this is the issue, or are you stating that it is, or are you suggesting that I have defined the issue in these simple terms? I have not, and I also did not express an opinion about that. The fact is that either of these countries could be planning a first strike. It is also possible that neither of them is, or most probably both.

Sorry Dancr, the ? is a typo. Who is planning a first strike is the issue!!! Go wrong here and you're dead wrong. You ARE expressing an opinion Dancr. Your opinion is that if anyone is planning a first strike it is America, based on having done it before. Your above statement reveal that you do not know or are not sure if either is planning a first strike.

You seem to be saying that the United States would never strike first, because even though American leaders are "quite capable of evil," they are not "insane, ruthless,  stupid" and evil to the point of being "possessed by the 'evil' one." This is the part that I question. It is not necessary to make a huge leap into religious mumbo jumbo to suppose that someone might actually push that button. To find someone capable of unleashing such horror, recognizing that so far we are the only ones who have used these weapons in war, we only have to look into the mirror. And the other guy is the same as we.

That is exactly what my opinion is. The U.S. is not militarily set up to strike first. Compare that with Russia's weapon's systems. Their weapons prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are setting up for a first strike. If you would like facts and figures let me know. That is the physical evidence I base my opinion on. Another leg of evidence is soviet military strategy, thirdly is what is now taking place in Russia, and thirdly, anyone who is planning to use weapons of mass destruction is evil, ruthless, and evil. That is not religious mumbo jumbo, that is what a secular person would say. As a Christian, who believes in Satan, I would go one step further, and say, the leaders who unleash these weapons first is possessed of the 'evil one'. Again, the only evidence you fall back on is the fact that America used them. And when did they use them? During a world war, to bring the war to an end. It was not a first strike. It was a response to a first strike by Japan. Your logic escapes me.

The fact that a country devotes an enormous percentage of its budget to providing a vast network of underground shelters for its citizens is not evidence that they are planning to strike anyone. It is evidence that they fear being struck, and rightfully so! On the other hand, any nation in which leaders actively discourage citizens from prudent self-protection against nuclear fallout, even though "enemy" nations possess huge stocks of nuclear weapons, might well be suspected of foolishly relying on their own first strike capability.

And why pray tell, would they be afraid of being struck? Maybe it's because they are planning a first strike and KNOW they cannot escape retaliation of some kind. Helllooo? I can't even bring myself to respond to your second point, but I know I must. Our leaders live in a dream world. They can't imagine anyone unleashing weapons of mass destruction on innocent people. It is not because they are planning a first strike. If they were then the you would expect them to make sure a civil defense program was in place. Not having a civil defense in place in my opinion is one of the biggest crimes the American government has ever perpetrated on the American people. Dancr, again, we have no first strike capability.

The moral for us as individuals is that we need to have already provided our selves and our families with fallout shelters. Most of us have not. It's rather late in the game to begin building them now. The best we can do at this point is obtain enough KI for our loved ones, try to get gas masks for protection against biological and chemical events, purchase tyvek for making fallout suits, and plan how we will make expedient shelters, when needed. These are not high cost or high effort measures. Recognizing that these protections are a far cry from what is needed, we should also be very careful to avoid saber rattling.

Happily we end up in the same place. :-) God bless you Dancr. May all my concerns end up in the trash can.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), October 16, 1999.

My believe is that the Russiana are certainly preparing for the coming Third World War, in concert with their new "allies" the Chinese communists.

You doubters should not underestimate Russian anger at Nato action in Yugoslavia, nor should you overlook the fact of the shared racial heritage between Russian and the Serbs who were the object of our bombs. Add to this Russia's deadly rage at Western "interference" in the Balkans, their geo-strategic "sphere of influence", and Russian anger at Western (USA) global dominance paints a decidedly pessimistic picture.

Does anyone in this forum have an understanding of Russian nuclear war doctrine (which is the only doctrine pertinent to a discussion of a possible Russian nuclear strike)? It was recently stated by a leading Russian general that: "The idea there are no winners in a nuclear war is a western myth to which Russia has never subscribed."

Perhaps we should take his word for it that it is, if nothing else, what the Russian generals believe. That a nuclear exchange between Russia and the USA is certainly winnable. Equally, we have no choice but to accept the view of a leading Chinese military planner that war with the USA is "inevitable". We might also remember the words of Deng Zaoping to Richard Nixon, "Is peace your only goal?"

Are you guys in this forum aware of the Chinese secret military briefing recently obtained and translated, in which the Chinese military top brass expresses the that view war with the US over Taiwan and Chinese hegemony within its own geo-political region as desirable "sooner, rather than later"?

I do not believe that Russia has built all those nuclear-proof civilian shelters simply "in case" of a nuclear attack. Nor do I believe that China has purchased the state of the art Russian battleships (Soverenny class) so feared, yes "feared" by the American navy simply in order modernize its armed forces per se. The Chinese are actively arming themselves for military conflict specifically against the United States. Further, this great Russian assistance in full upgrading of the Chinese forces goes hand in hand with Russia's own military resurgence. Russia is building huge warships for sale to foreign buyers everyone knows do not exist. Russia recently completed possiblt the biggest military exercise in its history in a huge operation with US forces as the target objective. The Chinese have done likewise. So please do not try to persuade me that both Russia and China would undertake such open large-scale military drills with no actual end-game in sight.

George Bush understands it all quite plainly, which is why he has seized control of the Iraqi oilfields, which will prove a vital strategic reserve in the event of any major war against major powers such as Russia or China.

America's 400 (180 permanently operational) megatons of submarine- based nuclear weapons would in no sense be sufficient to annihilate both Russia and China. Do not delude yourselves Americans. Your belief in the outdated theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has lulled you all into the false sense of security the Kremlin always wanted, and you would do very well to remember that despite the outward pretensions of new democratic ideals, every single government post in Russia remains occupied by life-long members of the Russian Communist Party. Putin himself once headed the KGB.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, Russia is almost as fully prepared to survive a nuclear exchange with the United States as is possible. The great majority of the casualties will be on the American side. There is no way that the scale of deaths implied by a nuclear strike on say, Los Angeles, could be compared with an American strike on Moscow. US cities have a dense population, whereas Russian remains a rural residency nation.

But make no mistake, the Russians are angry. They are hopping mad about Kosovo, and they also want their money out of Iraq (Saddam owed them $9,000,000,000). And the Chinese are hopping mad at US "interference" over Taiwan. What did China's Defence Minister have to say about it? "You have twice threatened us with nuclear attack in the 1950's. You will not do so again because now we can strike back with a nuclear capacity and you care more about the people of Los Angeles than you do about the people in Taipei."

Those of you who think that war is some avoidable product of evil minds and can be stopped if only we would all repent are living in cloud cuckoo land. There have always been wars, and always will be wars. Peace is only the interregnum between hostilities. I fullt expect World War Three to commence fully between 2008-2015.

-- Tony in London, UK (megaweed@yahoo.com), May 13, 2003.