Author

Topic: Truthseeker: US plans 'first strike' on Russia (Read 2183 times)

legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
It is extremely unlikely that the US or Russia will directly attack each other. The current conflict will likely be similar to the cold war in that we "fought" to have the best military technology, spied on each other and funded groups/countries that was hostile to groups/countries that was hostile to the other.

A first strike cannot be ruled out, especially if the heads of state of either one of these countries are blood-thirsty (for example, Hillary Clinton of USA, Zhirinovskyi of Russia). That said, both these nations are more likely to use the fifth-columns residing inside their rival nations to stir unrest (such as Chechens in Russia).  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
'Slow and steady wins the race'
It is extremely unlikely that the US or Russia will directly attack each other. The current conflict will likely be similar to the cold war in that we "fought" to have the best military technology, spied on each other and funded groups/countries that was hostile to groups/countries that was hostile to the other.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
I don't think they want that kind of power Wink
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Every one of these individuals has the same interest: power
No problem



There is enough power for everybody. Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
Every one of these individuals has the same interest: power
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
I don't think we need to fear one stupid nation using a nuclear weapon.

I disagree with you. We need to fear one stupid nation / ruler capable of doing that. Sometimes mentally deranged people commit suicide after killing  large number of people. Such cases can't be ignored.
It's not just one stupid nation. It's one stupid nation and it's lapdog allies.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
I don't think we need to fear one stupid nation using a nuclear weapon.

I disagree with you. We need to fear one stupid nation / ruler capable of doing that. Sometimes mentally deranged people commit suicide after killing  large number of people. Such cases can't be ignored.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 501
in defi we trust
If anyone is stupid enough to make a nuclear first strike it will be North Korea, Pakistan, or India. I was going to include Israel, but they are more likely to use chemical.

I don't think we need to fear one stupid nation using a nuclear weapon.
This will not happen as almost anyone knows what a nuclear war will bring and that even the winner will be in fact a loser.

What we should fear is an accident , and this thing will happen sooner or later , the only question is how many of us will survive  , and how many hands and feet we will have after it Smiley.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

Emperor Hirohito was already thinking about surrendering to the Allies, after the Nazis did the same. Even the allies knew about it. There was no need to kill half-a-million civilians, just to test the new American weapon.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
I think he did enough research.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

That's what you get for "hearing" instead of doing some research.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

Thank you for your kind and accurate post!
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 511
It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

Whether this can or can't happen is a matter of power and the US is in the process of loosing its world dominating power, namely the number one spot in the world economy. How far will they go to avoid loosing that? This is the worlds most militarised nation and wars are vital to their economy. Imho that was a large part of the reason for wanting to attack Syria, the US economy is facing collapse and desperately needs another war and the public backlash over Syria has made that situation more even more desperate.

The internet has given the world a voice and a means of avoiding propaganda, the old tried and tested means of control aren't as effective any more. Even Bitcoin has seriously threatened that power, its a poxy little 10 billion cap but the genie's out of the bottle and central banking's days are numbered. The only way of putting those genie's back in the bottle is boarders on communications between nations and the most effective way of achieving that is turning nations into enemies. I really hope that's just the tinfoil hat doing the thinking but those that forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them and history has many examples of powers corruption.

Yes very well said,
I would like to add that The Usa has alot of weapon manufacturer's, and they have alot of money and lobbyists.
So there are alot of people and companies that will profit from war, Also the people that control the debt of America (fed) would like to see them at war.
Just because they are spending there dollars, they have to pay them back so that's profit for the people that control the fed again.
So the American soldiers and people are told they are fighting for there 'freeworld' but they are just the lowest pawns, in a war giving there life just for money, power and control.

I would like to believe America wouldn't start a war just out of nothing, but as history has proven they will just do a falseflag attack and invade any country they fucking want.
Just to force democracy on them, that is supposed to be freedom.

legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

The United States remains as the only country which has ever used nukes against a civilian population (1945, Japan). And I am quite sure that if there is a second time, it will be the same perpetrators.

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

You should also remember that both Japan and Germany were working on the Bomb and would have used it first, or at least a dirty bomb, had those two evil governments not been stopped.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

The United States remains as the only country which has ever used nukes against a civilian population (1945, Japan). And I am quite sure that if there is a second time, it will be the same perpetrators.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
 It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

Yeah but even the smallest of tactical nukes or a bunkerbuster dropped onto one of the dikes and The Netherlands becomes a glorified swamp.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
If anyone is stupid enough to make a nuclear first strike it will be North Korea, Pakistan, or India. I was going to include Israel, but they are more likely to use chemical.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 511
I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

Holland wont be safe, thats why I will go to Aruba, ofcourse Aruba is part of The Netherlands but I dont think they will invade such a small island, they dont even have there own army.
Also they dont have the same laws and rules on Aruba as in The Netherlands, so do you really think Aruba would be involved in WW3?
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 511
I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

I'll continue to watch RT, just not that one show.  They can continue to make out like the US is the only government in the history of the world ever to have ever considered a first strike against another nation if that's what gets their viewing figures up by attracting drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots.  But anyone giving it even the slightest amount of rational thought is going to recognise that every single country with a nuclear arsenal has made similar plans of their own.  No one sits on a pile of nukes without some sort of idea on what they plan on doing with them.   No one's plan involves getting wiped out before firing a shot.  Sure, the US are probably the biggest warmongering profiteers on the planet, but they're not the only ones.  If you believe otherwise, then way to buy into some lame propaganda.

Ive been a subcriber to Russia today for more then a year now, they indeed cover some news that main stream media wont touch.
I dont believe America will drop something on Russia, just because they wouldnt do it like that.
If they start something they will do it smarter so they can brainwash the public it was a justified attack.
Just like the twin towers you think they would falseflag 9/11 and then just drop bombs on russia like it's nothing?
I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

I'll continue to watch RT, just not that one show.  They can continue to make out like the US is the only government in the history of the world ever to have ever considered a first strike against another nation if that's what gets their viewing figures up by attracting drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots.  But anyone giving it even the slightest amount of rational thought is going to recognise that every single country with a nuclear arsenal has made similar plans of their own.  No one sits on a pile of nukes without some sort of idea on what they plan on doing with them.   No one's plan involves getting wiped out before firing a shot.  Sure, the US are probably the biggest warmongering profiteers on the planet, but they're not the only ones.  If you believe otherwise, then way to buy into some lame propaganda.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
The main question is: will there be anyone reckless/stupid/self-righteous enough to put such a scenario into action.

Looking at the American politicians, I can find more than a dozen, including Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney. All the potential POTUS 2016 candidates with the exception of Rand Paul and Chris Christie (?) are pro-war.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

What was shown there is an entirely plausible scenario, out of many other scenarios. The main question is: will there be anyone reckless/stupid/self-righteous enough to put such a scenario into action.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
Why?

Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.
The US government has control over all mainstream media outlets. How do you think the public would not support war?

Yes.

We are all lead to believe anything beyond the US border are evil.

And being a good Christian, it is our duty to eradicate the evil.
Didn't Jesus say that the people should not send their gold to Caesar and instead keep it themselves?
Wasn't he against the government?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
full member
Activity: 218
Merit: 101
Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.
The US government has control over all mainstream media outlets. How do you think the public would not support war?

Yes.

We are all lead to believe anything beyond the US border are evil.

And being a good Christian, it is our duty to eradicate the evil.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.
The US government has control over all mainstream media outlets. How do you think the public would not support war?
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where.

The average American supports wars more than anyone, including the Europeans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

The war crazies may not be a majority, but they are a significant group in the US.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
It's a first step on the way to creation of the North American Federal District.

Ha!  That was good.

But really, I do feel sorry for any dumb American military kid who dies for a banker.  In this age of information, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.  I still feel sorry for them.
Too much propaganda can cause brain damage.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
It's a first step on the way to creation of the North American Federal District.

Ha!  That was good.

But really, I do feel sorry for any dumb American military kid who dies for a banker.  In this age of information, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.  I still feel sorry for them.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
No.. I dont believe this a bit.

Plans, strategies and war games, they're probably being planned. Whether they're actually planning to carry those plans out, not nearly as likely.
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
No.. I dont believe this a bit.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
And what year do you think will it be?

Obama will never do that. But I strongly suspect Hillary Clinton will invade Russia, at some point in her presidential career (2016-2020). Remember that Billary (Bill + Hillary) bombed Serbia, in order to divert the American public opinion from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If something similar happens to Hillary during her career, then invading Russia might be one of the best options for her.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
However, someone in the US might be crazy enough to think that this time a blitzkrieg against Russia will surely succeed...

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

There will be hawks everywhere, not only in the US. Some military leaders tend to over-estimate their strength and under-estimate their rivals military strength. Napoleon did it in 1812, and Hitler did it in 1939. Next in the list will be some American politician.
And what year do you think will it be?
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
However, someone in the US might be crazy enough to think that this time a blitzkrieg against Russia will surely succeed...

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

There will be hawks everywhere, not only in the US. Some military leaders tend to over-estimate their strength and under-estimate their rivals military strength. Napoleon did it in 1812, and Hitler did it in 1939. Next in the list will be some American politician.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
There will be no war, i'm sure.

But we will laugh a lot after Psaki's speaches and new ukrainan government activity...
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
I am not surprised. If not nuclear, then a slow creeping aggression is already on its way. I've had a thread on it running for some time now:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-the-west-gearing-up-to-invade-russia-once-again-584031

However, someone in the US might be crazy enough to think that this time a blitzkrieg against Russia will surely succeed...

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Quote
Bush will be appointed as the governor, I guess...
Why Bush?
Because he's an expert in democracy, see Iraq for example. Although actually, I think that anyone of them (Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc.) will be suitable to the position of Governor.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
Quote
Bush will be appointed as the governor, I guess...
Why Bush?
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
In the end they will get something like this:

full member
Activity: 185
Merit: 100
Unlikely.

It will become WW3.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
What do you think about this?
It's a first step on the way to creation of the North American Federal District.



Bush will be appointed as the governor, I guess...
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
freedomainradio.com
Jump to: