Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,151,757 members, 7,813,510 topics. Date: Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 01:13 PM |
Nairaland Forum / NairaMinted's Profile / NairaMinted's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (of 51 pages)
Foreign Affairs / Re: How Russia Is Preparing For WWIII by NairaMinted: 5:52pm On May 29, 2016 |
So I went to the direct source of this article (yours is incomplete by the way, jnhmaxxwell) to read it and even went further to read the other articles and reference pages hyperlinked to it. Several take-homes from the article: from Russia's dogged history, perseverance and will to survive; to the remarkable transformation it's once derelict military underwent under Putin and the modern, fearsome weapons now at its disposal; to - as the title of the article states- the different ways in which Russia is systematically but surely preparing for an unwanted - yet seemingly unavoidable - war with the Hegemon. Very interesting read I must say and I recommend that every one that has an interest in geopolitics, military strategy and weapons systems, read it. Below is a pic The Saker put up in one of these articles. Doesn't totally capture the hubris and f00lhardiness of the West but I believe it paints a pretty good picture of the situation. Lol: 2 Likes 2 Shares
|
Foreign Affairs / Re: The Art Of War: The Reconquest Of Africa by NairaMinted: 12:03pm On May 28, 2016 |
thoth: Where have you been dude? Long time! 1 Like 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 11:27pm On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: Ok Khanadab was primarily for transport and logistics. Incirlik in Turkey nko? Satan Arabia air bases nko? Diego Garcia nko? Those 4 airfields in Thailand during the vietnam nko? That new airstrip in northern Syria nko? Akrotiri in Cyprus nko? Malta nko? Impressive numbers by the Harriers by the way. But were all the flights off carriers? Were they? What was the ratio? How much payload did these Harriers carry? Any bunker busting bombs amongst them at all? Scratch that! Does the ratio even matter? Bottom line, were all sorties from carriers? You know the answer I believe. In your own words, you said you were talking about aircraft that are directly engaging in combat and then went on say heavy gunships don't take off from carriers. True. But heavy gunships such as the AC-130 ARE NOT long range. Why do you suppose I mentioned this one in particular and not the B-52 or B-2 longe range bombers for instance? Don't AC-130 gunships take off from airfields? And isn't it a combat aircraft (your own words) Aha! You see who's stupid now? Aha? See? Abi you want me to break it down further? And these aerial tankers that refuel these attack aircrafts so that they can remain airborne and engaged longer; from whence do they take off Missy? Quoting a Vietnam campaign that involved a substantial amount of sorties off carriers doesn't discount the fact that a considerable amount also took off form ground air bases. Every single Amerika bombing campaign has required an (several) airfield(s). If you are so certain airfields aren't needed, please present this ground breaking solution to your superiors and see how they react. 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 10:51pm On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: Missy, biko, ehn? I believe that by now you should be familiar with whom you are chatting with. Put some respeck on it ehn? Here you are trying to argue that Amerika only retroactively took action in Eastern Europe after the events in Ukraine? Hmmmm... That's a bold faced stinking lie! Have you forgotten the roles of Victoria Nuland and Amerika's CIA station Chief in any host country - the ambassador - and in this case Ambasador Jeremy Pyatt? The leaked phone call? The over $5 billion invested in so called "democratic" movements, euphemism for color revolutions? And these ABM shields which you woefully wishfully tried to explain away, you still explained what they are for. What if Russian ICBMs take a northern route? Aren't they launched within Russia? Aren't they at their most vulnerable stage at the early stage of flight which these ABM shields are now well placed to take out? Ok! Let's agree to your silly excuse, Russian ICBMs follow a northern route. Who are these ABM shields that have been planned for Bushe's presidency meant for? Abi the Generals at the Pentagon are now psychics that saw "Russian aggression" way into the future? 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 10:28pm On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: Hogwash! Russia hesitated cos she was afraid of further sanctions? How ridiculous and disingenuous of you! So why was Crimea taken? How is Donbass different from Crimea. Wasn't Crimea part for Ukraine as well? Eh? Georgia:you might as well have claimed that the presence of a B-2 bomber just outside Russian airspace and that a call from George Bush threatening to nuke Moscow stopped the Russians in their tracks. Yes, Russia didn't take Tbilisi but this more as the Russians allowing diplomacy to prevail, primary due to effort from folks such as Sarkozy - not because some Amerikan cargo plane was parked at the airport. 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: How Russia Is Preparing For WWIII by NairaMinted: 2:40pm On May 27, 2016 |
Looks interesting. I'll digest this long read later 3 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: President Obama Visits Hiroshima; Wants "World Without Nuclear Weapon" (photos) by NairaMinted: 2:30pm On May 27, 2016 |
Wants a world without nuclear weapons but has spent over a billion dollars developing a new generation of nuclear bombs - and shipped it to Europe. Ok na 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 1:18pm On May 27, 2016 |
ValerianSteel: Oga I didn't claim Russia can invade any country(s) within 60 hours. Neither did Putin or anyone in his government. The CIA and their complacent so-called mainstream media did. You didn't catch where I mocked the Anglo-Zionist alarmist at the beginning of this post abi? Again - just for sh*ts and giggles - why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe?? 3 Likes 3 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Signs That Hilary Clinton Will Win The Presidential Election by NairaMinted: 9:04am On May 27, 2016 |
patches689: Yezzur! 1 Like |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 8:53am On May 27, 2016 |
ValerianSteel: Oga-It-Took-Russia-6-Months-To-Win-Back-Territory in Syria, I have already posed the question why Russia would want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe to your "girlfriend" since I know you are incapable of answering. Must you follow Missy89 upandan threads seconding Missy's views and liking Missy's posts like some love sick puppy? I recollect an instance Missy even ordered you not to reply on one particular thread but like the meddlesome interloper that he/she is, he/she came back and you also followed suit! Hilarious! Are you incapable of any independent thought at all? Are you trying to score points? Trying to get ya Jewish paws in those pants eh? That's if Missy is actually a missy. Lol! 5 Likes 3 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 8:47am On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: You posted a fancy chart showing declining Amerikan troops presence in Europe thinking that would sway a non-discerning fella into thinking that, "Alas! They are indeed scaling down their presence!" First, there was an existing Cold War during those years justifying why the troop numbers were that high. The 50s to 80s was the height of the Cold War. Second, modern technology (and increasing costs in wages & operations) doesn't require a country to maintain a large number of military personnel as it once did. Things are a bit more streamlined now and besides, professional soldiers rather than conscripts dominate most armies now. That's the trend worldwide: from China to India to Amerika to Russia - leaner, yet robust, very mobile and versatile fighting armies. Lastly, Amerika necessarily doesn't need to move troops in numbers. The eastward expansion of NATO and incorporation of new member nations is a threat enough. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/us-to-station-armoured-brigade-in-eastern-europe-from-2017/ "The Pentagon now aims to rotate in an Army armored brigade each year and divide the rotational force of 4,200 among six eastern members—Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria." These are countries that are immediate neighbors to Russia. An ABM shield is up in Romania, another to follow suit in Bulgaria. Whose ballistic missiles are they targeting? Care to answer? 2 Likes 3 Shares
|
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 8:43am On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: Once again, Missy89 beating about the bush, flailing all over the thread and being incoherent. As the The Saker has asked, why would Russia want to engage in a silly, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating act of invading Europe? Can you explain this? Russia "have always had wet dreams and imperial designs in Eastern Europe and there is a legitimate reason for Eastern Europeans to hate Russia" Bullsh*t! Complete BS! What history of Russian geopolitics? This is 2016, not 1956 dear cyber analyst! Why didn't Russia seize Georgia and Eastern Ukraine when it was for the taking even when Donbass begged that it be annexed by Russia? Why hasn't Russia overran the Baltic States since y'all claim it needs only THREE days to do so? Care to explain? 2 Likes 3 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 8:41am On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: I sorta agree with you on this. But it's actually 50-50.....Even The Saker can't be right on all matters abi? |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 8:36am On May 27, 2016 |
Missy89: Airfields aren't needed ke? Lol! I thought you served in the Amerikan Airforce? Or were you serving in the kitchen? Why then is Amerika building an airfield in Northern Syria within Kurdish territory? Why is the Incirlik Airforce base in Turkey very important? Or Diego Carcia in the Indian Ocean? Why did Amerika make use of the Khanabad airfield in Uzbekistan in its Afghanistan campaign? Why did Amerika fly most of its sorties during the Gulf War out of Satan Arabia? How many jets can 11 super carriers - assuming they are all deployed at once - possibly carry? And even if jets took off from carriers, how different would their mission be (in terms of payload & duration) compared to that taking off from a forward operating base for instance? Out of the thousands of aircrafts that Amerika possesses, how many are F-35s (in total)- never mind the ones that are functional and combat ready? And how many are jump jets such as the Harrier II that Amerika uses? Are we to assume that these jets would just appear on the battle field and fly back to their land bases several thousands of miles away or their carriers off the coast because from your projection, there is always a carrier just over the horizon by the coast and of course the hostile country is always small enough territory wise, doesn't possess sophisticated coastal and air defense systems and it's not at all bordered by other perhaps allied countries to allow this style of air campaign abi? That easy? Even if they don't land in the theatre of operation, how many aerial tankers could possibly support that many planes in the air if we were to imagine all those planes were deployed at once? Troop and cargo carriers such as C-130s, C-5s and C-17 Globemasters and heavy gunships such as the AC-130 would take off from super-carriers just off the coast abi? Lol! F-22s and other crafts that aren't designed for carrier take-off would take off from carriers as well abi? Even the Vietnam war air campaign that you gleefully - yet naively - mentioned, well here's a bit of history lesson for you: "majority of strikes during Rolling Thunderwere launched from four air bases, in Thailand: Korat, Takhli, Udon Thani, and Ubon. Navy strikes were launched from the aircraft carriers of Task Force 77, cruising off the North Vietnamese coast at Yankee Station. Naval aircraft, which had shorter ranges (and carried lighter bomb loads) than their air force counterparts, approached their targets from seaward with the majority of their strikes flown against coastal targets." You see the folly of your analysis? What kinda history were you studying when whipping up meals in the kitchen for the Cheeseburger Airforce? Every warring army/ Air Force needs a forward base of operation. End of story. 2 Likes 3 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 7:04pm On May 26, 2016 |
Cliché No 7: The US and NATO are protecting East European countries On paper and in the official NATO propaganda, all of Europe and the USA are ready, if needed, to start WWIII to defend Estonia from the revanchist Russian hordes. Judging at how the tiny Baltic states and Poland constantly “bark” at Russia and engage in an apparently never-ending streams of infantile but nonetheless arrogant provocations, folks in eastern Europe apparently believe that. They think that they are part of NATO, part of the EU, part of the “civilized West” and that their AngloZionist patrons will protect them from these scary Russkies. That belief just shows how stupid they are. I wrote above that the USA is the only real military force in NATO and that US military and political leaders all know that. And they are right. Non-US NATO capabilities are a joke. What in the world do you think the, say, Belgian or Polish armed forces are in reality. That’s right – both a joke and a target. How about the glorious and invincible Portuguese and Slovenians? Same deal. The reality is that non-US NATO armed forces are just fig leaves hiding the fact that Europe is a US colony – some fig leaves are bigger, other are smaller. But even the biggest fig leaves (Germany and France) are still only that – a disposable utensil at the service of the real masters of the Empire. Should a real war ever break up in Europe, all these pompous little European statelets will be told to get the f^ck out of the way and let the big boys take care of business. Both the Americans and the Russians know that, but for political reasons they will never admit this publicly. Here I have to admit that I cannot prove that. All I can do is offer a personal testimony. While I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC I had the opportunity to meet and spend time with a lot of US military personnel ranging from Armored Cavalry officers deployed in the Fulda Gap to a Chief of Naval Operations. The first thing that I will say about them is that they were all patriots and, I think, excellent officers. They were all very capable of distinguishing political nonsense (like the notion of forward deploying US carriers to strike at the Kola Peninsula) from how the US would really fight. One senior Pentagon officer attached to the Office of Net Assessment was very blunt about that and declared to our classroom “no US President will ever sacrifice Chicago to protect Munich”. In other words, yes, the US would fight the Soviets to protect Europe, but the US will never escalate that fight to the point were the US territory would be threatened by Soviet nukes. The obvious flaw here is that this assumes that escalation can be planned and controlled. Well, escalation is being planned in numerous offices, agencies and departments, but all these models usually show that it is very hard to control. As for de-escalation, I don’t know of any good models describing it (but my personal exposure to that kind of things is now very old, maybe things have changed since the late 1990s?). Keep in mind that both the USA and Russia have the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a defeat in conventional warfare included in their military doctrines. So if we believe, as I do, that the US is not willing to go nuclear to, say, save Poland then this basically means that the US is not even willing to defend Poland by conventional means or, at least, not defend it very much. Again, the notion that Russia would attack anybody in Europe is beyond ridiculous, no Russian leader would ever even contemplate such a stupid, useless, counter-productive and self-defeating plan, if only because Russia has no need for any territory. If Putin told Poroshenko that he did not want to take over the Donbass, how likely is that that the Russians are dreaming of occupying Lithuania or Romania?! I challenge anybody to come up with any rational reason for the Russians to want to attack any country in the West (or elsewhere, for that matter) even if that country had no military and was not member of any military alliance. In fact, Russia could have *easily* invaded Georgia in the 08/08/08 war but did not. And when is the last time you heard Mongolia or Kazakhstan fearing a Russian (or Chinese) invasion? So the simple truth is that for all the big gesticulations and vociferous claims about defending the Europeans against the “Russian threat” there is no Russian threat just like the USA will never deliberately initiate a nuclear slugfest with Russia to defend Chisinau or even Stockholm. Conclusion So if all of the above are just clichés with no bearing on reality, why is the western corporate media so full of this nonsense? Mainly for two reasons: journalists are mostly “Jack of all trades, master of none” and they much prefer to pass on pre-packaged propaganda then to make the effort to try to understand something. As for the talking heads on TV, the various generals who speak as “experts” for CNN and the rest, they are also simply propagandists. The real pros are busy working for the various government agencies and they don’t go in live TV to speak about the “Russian threat”. But the most important reason for this nonsensical propaganda is that by constantly pretending to discuss a military issue the AngloZionist propagandist are thereby hiding the real nature of the very real conflict between Russia and the USA over Europe: a political struggle for the future of Europe: if Russia has no intention of invading anybody, she sure does have huge interest in trying to de-couple Europe from its current status of US colony/protectorate. The Russians fully realize that while the current European elites are maniacally russophobic, most Europeans (with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Poland) are not. In that sense the recent Eurovision vote where the popular vote was overturned by so-called “experts” is very symbolic. The first Secretary General of NATO did very openly spell out its real purpose “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The Russians want it exactly the other way around: the Russians in (economically, not militarily, of course), the Americans out and the Germans up (again, economically). That is the real reason behind all the tensions in Europe: the USA desperately wants a Cold War v.2 while Russia is trying as hard as she can to prevent this. So, what would a war between Russia and the USA look like? To be honest, I don’t know. It all depends on so many different factors that it is pretty much impossible to predict. That does not mean that it cannot, or will not, happen. There are numerous very bad signs that the Empire is acting in an irresponsible way. One of the worst ones is that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has almost completely ceased to function. The main reason for the creation of the NRC was to make sure that secure lines of communications were open, especially in a crisis or tension situation. Alas, as a way to signal their displeasure with Russia over the Ukraine, NATO has now almost completely closed down the NRC even though the NRC was precisely created for that purpose. Furthermore, forward deploying, besides often being militarily useless, is also potentially dangerous as a local incident between the two sides can rapidly escalate into something very serious. Especially when important lines of communications have been done away with. The good news, relatively speaking, is that the US and Russia still have emergency communications between the Kremlin and the White House and that the Russian and US armed forces also have direct emergency communication capabilities. But at the end of the day, the problem is not a technological one, but a psychological one: the Americans are apparently simply unable or unwilling to negotiate about anything at all. Somehow, the Neocons have imposed their worldview on the US deep state, and that worldview is that any dynamic between Russia and the USA is a zero sum one, that there is nothing to negotiate and that forcing Russia to comply and submit to the Empire by means of isolation and containment is the only thinkable approach. This will, of course, not work. The question is whether the Neocons have the intellectual capability to understand that or, alternatively, whether the “old” (paleo-conservative) Anglo US patriots can finally kick the “crazies in the basement” (as Bush senior used to refer to the Neocons) out of the White House. But if Hillary makes it into the White House in November, then things will become really scary. Remember how I said that no US President would ever sacrifice a US city in defense of a European one? Well, that assumes a patriotic President, one who loves his country. I don’t believe that the Neocons give a damn about America or the American people, and these crazies might well think that sacrificing one (or many) US cities is well worth the price if that allows them to nuke Moscow. Any theory of deterrences assumes a “rational actor”, not a psychopathic and hate-filled cabal of “crazies in a basement”. During the last years of the Cold War I was much more afraid of the gerontocrats in the Kremlin than of the Anglo officers and officials in the White House or the Pentagon. Now I fear the (relatively) new generation of “@ss-kissing little chickensh*t” officers à la Petraeus, or maniacs like General Breedlove, which have replaced the “old style” Cold Warriors (like Admirals Elmo Zumwalt, William Crowe or Mike Mullen) who at least knew that a war with Russia must be avoided at all cost. It is outright frightening for me to realize that the Empire is now run by unprofessional, incompetent, unpatriotic and dishonorable men who are either driven by hateful ideologies or whose sole aim in life is to please their political bosses. The example of Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz going to war against Hezbollah in 2006 or Saakashvili’s attempt at ethnically cleansing South Ossetia in 2008 have shown the world that ideology-driven leaders can start absolutely unwinnable wars, especially if they believe in their own propaganda about their invincibility. Let’s is hope and pray that this kind of insanity does not take over the current US leaders. The best thing that could happen for the future of mankind would be if real patriots would come back to power in the United States. Then mankind could finally breathe a big sigh of relief. The Saker Appleyard, Zoharariel, Scully95, Underground, Capip120, Poseidon000, Fineguy11, Shymm3x, 1Tkester, Bonechamberlain, Seunny4lif, Phrenology, Lumiere91, hungryboy Romme2u, Jnhmaxxwell, Stalwert, Panafrican, Seagulsntrawler, Barram, NaijaTalkTown, Overhypedsteve & Januzaj 3 Likes 1 Share
|
Foreign Affairs / Debunking Popular Clichés About Modern Warfare by NairaMinted: 7:00pm On May 26, 2016 |
Arm-chair Generals and Cyber Military Analysts: * Do numbers and "technological advantage" really count in modern warfare? * Is this much harped "Russian aggression" a myth or fact? What side is stirring the pot and truly provocating? * Does Russia truly harbour revanchist dreams and (for no apparent or explicable reason) looking to invade Europe and whilst doing so, overrun the Baltic States within 60 hours as the European alarmists like to warn (Never mind that this is the new revised projection from an initial scaremongering assessment of just THREE days a few months ago!)? *Is the much vaunted Amerikan military as awesome as they say it is? What is it's track record like? How does the Amerikan military (and NATO) stack up against that of the Russians? * Will this report allay our fears? Re-affirm our convictions? Deflate or inflate our egos? Enjoy! http://thesaker.is/debunking-popular-cliches-about-modern-warfare/ [size=18pt]Debunking popular clichés about modern warfare[/size] “What would a war between Russia and the USA look like?” This must be the question which I am most frequently asked. This is also the question to which I hear the most outlandish and ill-informed responses to. I have addressed this question in the past and those interested in this topic can consult the following articles: Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War Making sense of Obama’s billion dollar hammer Why the US-Russian nuclear balance is as solid as ever Short reminder about US and Russian nuclear weapons Thinking the unthinkable The Russia-U.S. Conventional Military Balance It would be pointless for me to repeat it all here, so I will try to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle, but I would strongly recommend that those interested take the time to read this articles which, while mostly written in 2014 and 2015, are still basically valid, especially in the methodology used to tackle this issue. All I propose to do today is to debunk a few popular clichés about modern warfare in general. My hope is that by debunking them I will provide you with some tools to cut through the nonsense which the corporate media loves to present to us as “analysis”. Cliché No 1: the US military has a huge conventional advantage over Russia It all depends by what you mean by “advantage”. The US armed forces are much larger than the Russian ones, that is true. But, unlike the Russians ones, they are spread all over the planet. In warfare what matters is not the size of your military, but how much of it is actually available for combat in the theater of military operations TMO (conflict area). For example, if in any one given TMO you have only 2 airfields each capable of sustaining air operations for, say 100 aircraft, it will do you no good to have 1000 aircraft available. You might have heard the sentence “civilians focus on firepower, soldiers on logistics“. This is true. Modern military forces are extremely “support heavy” meaning that for one tank, aircraft or artillery piece you need a huge and sophisticated support line making it possible for the tank, aircraft or artillery piece to operate in a normal way. Simply put – if you tank is out of fuel or spares – it stops. So it makes absolutely no sense to say, for example, that the USA has 13’000 aircraft and Russia only 3’000. This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant. What matters is only how many aircraft the US and NATO could have ready to engage on the moment of the initiation of combat operations and what their mission would be. The Israelis have a long record of destroying the Arab air forces on the ground, rather than in the air, in surprise attacks which are the best way to negate a numerical advantage of an adversary. The reality is that the USA would need many months to assemble in western Europe a force having even a marginal hope to take on the Russian military. And the reality also is that nothing could force the Russians to just sit and watch while such a force is being assembled (the biggest mistake Saddam Hussein made). Cliché No 2: an attacker needs a 3:1 or even 4:1 advantage over the defender. Well, this is one “kinda true”, especially on a tactical level. There is an often used as a general rule of thumb that being in the defense gives you a 3:1 advantage meaning that if you have 1 battalion on the defense you should could about 3 battalions on the offense in order to hope for a victory. But when looking at an operational or, even more so, strategic level, this rule is completely false. Why? Because the defending side has a huge disadvantage: it is always the attacker who gets to decide when to attack, where and how. For those interested by this topic I highly recommend the book “Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning” by Richard Betts which, while relatively old (1982) and very focused on the Cold War, provides a very interesting and thorough discussion of the advantages and risks of a surprise attack. This is a fascinating topic which I cannot discuss in detail here, but let’s just say that a successfully pulled off surprise attack almost totally negates the advantage in theoretical forces ratios for the defender. Let me give you a simple example: imagine a front line of 50 km in which each 5 km are defended on both sides by a one division. So each sides has 10 divisions, each responsible for the defense of 5km of front, right? According to the 3:1 rule, side A needs 30 divisions to overcome the 10 divisions in the defense? Right? Wrong! What side A can do is concentrate 5 of its divisions on a 10km wide front and put the other five in the defense. On that 10km wide front of attack side now had 5 attacking divisions against 2 defending ones while on the rest of the front, side A has 5 defending divisions against 8 (potentially) attacking ones. Notice that now side B does not have a 3:1 advantage to overcome side A’s defenses (the actual ration is now 8:5). In reality what B will do is rush more divisions to defend the narrow 10km sector but that, in turn means that B now has less divisions to defense the full front. From here on you can make many assumptions: side B can counter-attack instead of defending, side B can defend in depth (in several “echelons”, 2 or even 3), side A could also begin by faking attack on one sector of the front and then attack elsewhere, or side A can send, say, one reinforced battalion to move really fast and create chaos deep in the defenses of B. My point here is simply that this 3:1 rules is purely a tactical rule of thumb and that in real warfare theoretical forces ratios (norms) require much more advanced calculations, including the consequences of a surprise attack. Cliché No 3: high technology wins the day That is a fantastically false statement and yet this myth is sacred dogma amongst civilians, especially in the USA. In the real world, high teach weapons systems, while very valuable, also come with a long list of problems the first one of which is simply cost. [Sidebar: when I was studying military strategy in the late 1990s one of our teachers (from the US Air Force) presented us with a graph showing the increasing cost of a single US fighter aircraft from the 1950s to the 1990s. He then projected this trend in the future and jokingly concluded that by roughly 2020 (iirc) the USA would only have the money to afford one single and very, very expensive fighter. This was a joke, of course, but it had a very serious lesson in it: runways costs can result in insanely expensive weapon systems which can only be produced at very few copies and which are very risky to engage]. Technology is also typically fragile and requires a very complex support, maintenance and repair network. It makes no sense to have the best tank on the planet if it spends most of its time in major repairs. Furthermore, one of the problems of sophisticated high tech gear is that its complexity makes it possible to attack it in many different ways. Take, for example, an armed drone. It can be defeated by: shooting it out of the sky (active defense) blinding or otherwise disabling its sensors (active defense) jamming its communications with the operator (active defense) jamming or disabling its navigation system (active defense) camouflage/deception (passive defense) providing it with false targets (passive defense) protecting targets by, for example, burying them (passive defense) remaining mobile and/or decentralized and/or redundant (passive defense) There are many more possible measures, it all depends on the actual threat. They key here is, again, cost and practicality: how much does it cost to develop, build and deploy an advanced weapon system versus the cost of one (or several) counter-measures. Finally, history has shown over and over again that willpower is far more important that technology. Just look at the absolutely humiliating and total defeat of the multi-billion high tech Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah in 2006. The Israelis used their entire air force, a good part of their navy, their very large artillery, their newest tanks and they were defeated, horribly defeated, by probably about less than 2000 Hezbollah fighters, and even those where not the very best Hezbollah had (Hezbollah kept the best ones north of the Litani river). Likewise, the NATO air campaign against the Serbian Army Crops in Kosovo will go down in history as one of the worst defeats of a huge military alliance backed by high tech weapons by a small country equipped with clearly dated weapon systems. [Sidebar: on both these wars what really “saved the day” for the AngloZionists is a truly world-class propaganda machine which successfully concealed the magnitude of the defeat of the AngloZionist forces. But the information is out there, and you can look it up for yourself]. Cliché No 4: big military budgets win the day That is also a myth which is especially cherished in the USA. How often have you heard something like “the billion dollar B-2″ or the “6 billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carrier”? The assumption here is that if the B-2 or the Nimitz costs so much money they must be truly formidable. But are they? Take the three hundred million dollar plus dollar F-22A “Raptor” and then look up the “deployment” subsection in the Wikipedia article about the F-22A. What have we got? A few Russian T-95 (date of introduction: 1956) bomber intercepts and one Iranian F-4 Phantom (date of introduction: 1960) interception. That, a few bombing runs in Syria and a motley assortment of overseas deployments for PR reasons. That’s it! On paper the F-22A is an awesome aircraft and, in many ways is really is, but the real life reality is that the F-22A was only used on missions which an F-16, F-15 or F-18 could have done for cheaper and even done it better (the F-22A is a crappy bomber, if only because it was never designed to be one). I already hear the counter argument: the F-22A was designed for a war against the USSR and had that war happened it would have performed superbly. Yeah, maybe, except that less than 200 were ever built. Except that in order to maintain a low radar cross section the F-22 has a tiny weapons bay. Except that the Soviets deployed infra-red search and track systems on all their MiG-29s (a very non-high-teach fighter) and their SU-27s. Except that the Soviets had already begun developing “anti-stealth” radars and that nowadays the F-22A is basically useless against modern Russian radars. None of that negates that in terms of technology, the F-22A is a superb achievement and a very impressive air superiority fighter. But one which would not have made a significant difference in a real war between the USA and the Soviet Union. Cliché No 5: big military alliances help win wars One more myth about wars which is cherished in the West: alliances win wars. The typical example is, of course, WWII: in theory, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the “Axis powers” while 24 nations (including Mongolia and Mexico) formed the “Allies“. As we all know, the Allies defeated the Axis. That is utter nonsense. The reality is very different. Hitler’s forces included about 2 million Europeans for 15 different countries which added 59 divisions, 23 brigades, a number of separate regiments, battalions and legions to the German forces (source: here, here, here and here). Furthermore, the Red Army account for no less than 80% of all the German losses (in manpower and equipment) during the war. All the others, including the USA and the UK, shared the puny 20% or less and joined the war when Hitler was already clearly defeated. Some will mention the various resistance movements which did resist the Nazis, often heroically. I don’t deny their valor and contribution, but it is important to realize that no resistance movement in Europe ever defeated a single German Wehrmacht or SS division (10 to 15 thousand men). In comparison, in Stalingrad alone the Germans lost 400’000 soldiers, the Romanians 200’000, the Italians 130’000, and the Hungarians 120,000 for a total loss of 850’000 soldiers. In the Kursk battle the Soviets defeated 50 German divisions counting about 900’000 soldiers. [Sidebar: While resistance movements were typically engaged in sabotage, diversion or attacks on high value targets, they were never designed to attack regular military formations, not even a company (120 men or so). The German forces in the USSR were structures into several “Army Groups” (Heeresgruppe) each of which contained 4-5 Armies (each with about 150’000 soldiers). What I am trying to illustrate with these figures is that the magnitude of the combat operations on the Eastern Front was not only different from what any resistance movement can deal with, but also different from any other theater of military operations during WWII, at least for land warfare – the naval war in the Pacific was also fought on a huge scale]. The historical record is that one unified military force under one command usually performs much better than large alliances. Or, to put it differently, when large alliances do form, there is typically the “one big guy” who really matters and everybody else is more or less a sideshow (of course, the individual combatant who gets attacked, maimed and killed does not feel that he is a “sideshow”, but that does not change the big picture). Speaking of NATO the reality is that there is no NATO outside the USA. The USA is the only country in NATO which really matters. Not just in terms of numbers and firepower, but also in terms of intelligence, force projection, mobility, logistics, etc. Every single US commanders knows and understands that perfectly, and while he will be impeccably courteous to his non-US colleagues in Mons or during cocktail parties in Brussels, if the proverbial bovine excreta hits the fan and somebody has to go and fight the Russians, the Americans will count solely on themselves and will be happy of the rest of the NATO members get out of the way without delay. Cliché No 6: forward deployment gives a major advantage Day after day we hear the Russians complaining that NATO has moved to their borders, that thousands of US troops are now deployed in the Baltics or Poland, that the US has deployed anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and that USN ships are constantly hugging the Russian coast in the Black and Baltic Sea. And it’s all true and very deplorable. But where the Russians are being a tad disingenuous is when they try to present all this as a military threat to Russia. The truth is that from a purely military point of view, deploying US forces in the Baltic states of sending USN ships into the Black Sea are very bad ideas, in the first case because the three Baltics states are indefensible anyway, and it the second case because the Black Sea is, for all practical purposes, a Russian lake where the Russian military can detect and destroy any ship within 30 minutes or less. The American are quite aware of that and if they decided to strike at Russia they would not do if from forward deployed ship but with long-range standoff weapons such as ballistic or cruise missiles. [Sidebar: the notion that Russia would ever want to attack any of the Baltic states or sink a USN ship is ridiculous and I am in no way suggesting that this might happen. But when looking at purely military issues you look at capabilities, not intentions.] The range of modern weapons is such that in case of war in Europe there will probably not be a real “front” and a “rear”, but being closer to the enemy still makes you easier to detect and exposes you to a wider array of possible weapons. Simply put, the closer you are to Russian firepower, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance networks and personnel, the greater number of potential threats you need to worry about. I would not go as far as to say that forward deployment does not give you any advantage, it does: your weapon systems can reach further, the flight time of your missiles (ballistic and cruise) is shorter, your aircraft need less fuel to get to their mission area, etc. But these advantages come at a very real cost. Currently forward deployed US forces are, at best, a trip-wire force whose aim is political: to try to demonstrate commitment. But they are not any real threat to Russia. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Hezzbollah Captures CIA Official In Aleppo, Commanding Al-qaeda by NairaMinted: 6:39pm On May 26, 2016 |
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/27/king-salmans-shady-history-saudi-arabia-jihadi-ties/ This is the kind of regime that the Amerikan regime is hobnobbing with and kissing their @asses. And they can claim to be fighting terrorsism in the same breath. SMH! Excerpts: Yet Salman has an ongoing track record of patronizing hateful extremists that is now getting downplayed for political convenience. As former CIA official Bruce Riedel astutely pointed out, Salman was the regime’s lead fundraiser for mujahideen, or Islamic holy warriors, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as for Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan struggles of the 1990s. In essence, he served as Saudi Arabia’s financial point man for bolstering fundamentalist proxies in war zones abroad. As longtime governor of Riyadh, Salman was often charged with maintaining order and consensus among members of his family. Salman’s half brother King Khalid (who ruled from 1975 to 1982) therefore looked to him early on in the Afghan conflict to use these family contacts for international objectives, appointing Salman to run the fundraising committee that gathered support from the royal family and other Saudis to support the mujahideen against the Soviets. Riedel writes that in this capacity, Salman “work[ed] very closely with the kingdom’s Wahhabi clerical establishment.” Another CIA officer who was stationed in Pakistan in the late 1980s estimates that private Saudi donations during that period reached between $20 million and $25 million every month. And as Rachel Bronson details in her book, Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership With Saudi Arabia, Salman also helped recruit fighters for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Salafist fighter who served as a mentor to both Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.Reprising this role in Bosnia, Salman was appointed by his full brother and close political ally King Fahd to direct the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC) upon its founding in 1992. Through the SHC, Salman gathered donations from the royal family for Balkan relief, supervising the commission until its until its recent closure in 2011. By 2001, the organization had collected around $600 million — nominally for relief and religious purposes, but money that allegedly also went to facilitating arms shipments, despite a U.N. arms embargo on Bosnia and other Yugoslav successor states from 1991 to 1996. And what kind of supervision did Salman exercise over this international commission? In 2001, NATO forces raided the SHC’s Sarajevo offices, discovering a treasure trove of terrorist materials: before-and-after photographs of al Qaeda attacks, instructions on how to fake U.S. State Department badges, and maps marked to highlight government buildings across Washington. The Sarajevo raid was not the first piece of evidence that the SHC’s work went far beyond humanitarian aid. Between 1992 and 1995, European officials tracked roughly $120 million in donations from Salman’s personal bank accounts and from the SHC to a Vienna-based Bosnian aid organization named the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA). Although the organization claimed to be focused on providing humanitarian relief, Western intelligence agencies estimated that the TWRA actually spent a majority of its funds arming fighters aligned with the Bosnian government. A defector from al Qaeda called to testify before the United Nations, and who gave a deposition for lawyers representing the families of 9/11 victims, alleged that both Salman’s SHC and the TWRA provided essential support to al Qaeda in Bosnia, including to his 107-man combat unit. In a deposition related to the 9/11 case, he stated that the SHC “participated extensively in supporting al Qaida operations in Bosnia” and that the TWRA “financed, and otherwise supported” the terrorist group’s fighters. 3 Likes 1 Share
|
Foreign Affairs / Re: Hezzbollah Captures CIA Official In Aleppo, Commanding Al-qaeda by NairaMinted: 6:32pm On May 26, 2016 |
This paragraph here: Second CIA Sources inside the US intelligence community, however, tell a different story. They cite a rift between a “second CIA” run by Bush era contracting firms that had taken over all command functions for that organization, groups now in the pay of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, using CIA resources including the massive CIA base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel and the reputed CIA covert operations facility at the US Naval Support Activity in Dubai, and the “real CIA,” whatever that is. The shady past of the present ruler of Satan Arabia who cut his teeth cooperating with radical islamist when he was in charge of Humanitarian efforts for Bosnian Muslims in Kosovo lends credence to the report above. He has only reactivated operations that never really ceased. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russian Mod Denies Loss Report. Work Of Propagandists & Rumour Peddlers by NairaMinted: 6:12pm On May 26, 2016 |
marvelousabah: The thing is these so-called respectable news media have thrown ethics and fairness to the wind. They are basically mouthpieces of the Amerikan State Department and the CIA. What we now have are totally subservient and insouciant news media kowtowing to the propaganda and diktats of the Amerikan government. News media with no investigative skills, acumen or desire. News media with accountability or consequences for their actions. Truth tellers and whistleblowers are persecuted and imprisoned. Several real,honest journalists that stick to their guns rather than partake in the fiasco labelled journalism in Amerika are resigning. Patriotic journalists and those with a bit of integrity remaining, such as Sharyl Attkisson of CBS and Peter Oborne of The Telegraph have left rather than continue peddling transparent lies such as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; Assad's use of chemical weapons; Iranian nukes or sheepishly falling for the absurd excuse that NATO ABM shields placed in eastern Europe is to counter ballistic missile launches from Iran! Can you believe that?! Iran has the technology (no mind the desire and motive) to lob missiles at Europe! But there you have the cow.ardly and mor.onic Amerikan media swallowing, regurgitating and spinning every piece of balderdash and lies that the Amerikan government says. Presstitutes Gerald Celente and Paul Craig Roberts like to call them. The chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors compared RT to Boko Haram and ISIS, which is in actuality a thinly veiled threat that should RT not conform to Amerikan government propaganda, they will suffer the same fate that Press TV did in the UK. So much for press freedom. So much for independent media! 1 Like 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Dis-integration Noose Thightens On The EU, As France Goes Brexit Way by NairaMinted: 5:11pm On May 26, 2016 |
Apparently, it is only former Soviet bloc states such as the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine that long to belong to the E.U.. The populace of western Europe it seems have had enough. 2 Likes |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Russian Mod Denies Loss Report. Work Of Propagandists & Rumour Peddlers by NairaMinted: 1:11pm On May 26, 2016 |
"Our international partners" 2 Likes 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Russian Mod Denies Loss Report. Work Of Propagandists & Rumour Peddlers by NairaMinted: 1:09pm On May 26, 2016 |
Russian MoD denies loss report: "ISIS propagandists and 'our international partners' spread these rumors" May 25, 2016 - RusVesna - Translated by J. Arnoldski The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has denied reports that Russia military helicopters and trucks were destroyed at the T-4 Syrian air base. The official representative of the Russian Defense Ministry, General Major Igor Konashenkov, stated: “All Russian military helicopters located in the Syrian Arab Republic are fulfilling their routine tasks of eliminating terrorists. There have been losses among the personnel of the Russian air base. I will remind everyone that the authors of such rumors of the destruction of Russian military helicopter units and two dozen trucks are ISIS propagandists who unsuccessfully tried to ‘sell’ this alleged ‘news’ around 10 days ago. As for the photos of the Syrian airbase featuring burned aircraft and vehicles, as well as numerous rocket craters, these are more than a month old. This was the result of the hard fighting for the airfield between Syrian government forces and the militants of terrorist formations. If we discard such rumors and speak straightforwardly, then it seems that the dissemination of such information is feasibly, in quotes, ‘part of our partners’ contribution to the fight against international terrorism.’” The US has begun to “lose itself in testimony,” as American intelligence services have already partially denied the ‘shadow CIA’ report of Russian helicopters smoked by ISIS. Earlier, a number of leading American and international media sources published news referring to the American private intelligence company Stratfor that units of Russian helicopters and two dozen trucks had allegedly been destroyed at the T-4 airbase in Tias district, Homs.
|
Foreign Affairs / Re: Iran Says It Is Capable Of Destroying Israel In Eight Minutes by NairaMinted: 11:47pm On May 24, 2016 |
Zoharariel: Exactly! "God's chosen people my @ss! So what are you? "God's other people"? BULLSH*T! 3 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Will The November US Presidential Election Bring The End Of The World? by NairaMinted: 11:41pm On May 24, 2016 |
That write up sounds quite Orwellian, Zoharariel. However, this is what Senator Ron Paul says is coming: http://financialmartiallaw.com What is JH15 and UWEX 16? 2 Likes |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Will The November US Presidential Election Bring The End Of The World? by NairaMinted: 9:07pm On May 24, 2016 |
I just feel sorry for the people of Europe cos for the second time in less than a 80 years, they are staring at destruction right in the face! Appleyard, Zoharariel, Scully95, Underground, Capip120, Poseidon000, Fineguy11, Shymm3x, 1Tkester, Bonechamberlain, Seunny4lif, Phrenology, Lumiere91, hungryboy Romme2u, Jnhmaxxwell, Stalwert, Panafrican, Seagulsntrawler, Barram, NaijaTalkTown, Overhypedsteve & Januzaj 5 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Will The November US Presidential Election Bring The End Of The World? by NairaMinted: 9:03pm On May 24, 2016 |
[size=14pt]Will The November US Presidential Election Bring The End Of The World?[/size] Paul Craig Roberts “We have been watching for nearly a month a steady buildup of American and NATO forces along Russia’s borders – on land, on sea and in the air. There has been nothing like this on Russia’s borders, such an amassing of hostile military force, since the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.” So concludes America’s leading Russian expert, Professor Stephen Cohen (Princeton and New York Univesity). http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-has-not-seen-such-amassing-of-hostile-military-forces-on-its-borders-since-1941/5526562 Professor Cohen asks if Washington is sleepwalking and needs to wake up or whether Washington has gone crazy and intends war. Pepe Escobar advises Washington to “beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44725.htm Escobar reports that recently the Rand Corporation, “essentially a CIA outpost,” concluded that “Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours, if not less.” On the level of nukes and missile systems, Russia is four generations ahead of the US military/security complex, which is mainly interested in inflating profits with cost overruns. US weapons systems are simply outclassed. Nevertheless, the Russian high command is concerned with the Russian government’s low-key response to Washington’s aggression. The generals blame the “Atlanticists Integrationists” who infect Putin’s government. This faction is believed to be organized around Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and believes Russia should make concessions to Washington in order to be accepted as part of the West. The incompetent Russian central bank and neoliberal economists are part of the faction whose goal is to be part of the West regardless of its impact on Russian independence from Washington’s Empire. Stephen Cohen and Alastair Crooke, a former British secret agent, almost alone in the West have noticed that the Russian military and predominate part of the government that emphasizes national sovereignty are putting pressure on President Putin to eliminate those in the government who are willing to compromise Russia’s independence in order to gain acceptance by Washington. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/putin-west-war_b_9991162.html This has been my own opinion for some time. It is impossible to adequately stand up to an external threat when unreliable elements are part of the threatened government. If Putin is forced to remove Washington’s agents from his government, as he must do if Russia is to survive Washington’s plots, he must not let them leave Russia. If they escape, they will end up in Washington to be used as Washington’s Russian government in exile. If Putin doesn’t want to put them on trial for treason, then a form of national house arrest would be a solution. Alastair Crooke writes that Washington is miscalulating by seeking unipolar hegemony and, thus, is forcing Putin into the camp of the nationalists who value Russia’s sovereignty more than Western acceptance. Washington’s use of NATO in an effort to corner Russia with military buildups on Russia’s land and sea borders is forcing compromise out of Russia’s response to Washington’s aggression. Regardless of Escobar’s description of Russian military superiority over the West, Russian independence is between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the American neoconservatives’ determination to achieve hegemony over Russia. The hard place is those within the Russian government who are more Western than Russian in their orientation. If Trump becomes US president, there is some possibility, perhaps, that the neoconservatives will cease to dominate US foreign and military policies. Should this turn out to be the case, the Russian nationalists might ease their pressure on Putin to remove the Atlanticist Integrationists from the government. If Hillary becomes US president, the neoconservative threat to Russia will escalate. The Atlanticist Integrationists will be eliminated from the Russian government, and Russia will move to full war standing. Remember what an unprepared Russia did to the German Wehrmacht, at that time the most powerful army ever assembled. Imagine what a prepared Russia would do to the crazed Hillary and the incompetent neoconservatives. As I have previously written, pushing Russia to war means the demise of the US and Europe and, considering the destructive power of nuclear weapons, most likely of all life on earth. The main cause of this danger is the arrogance, hubris, and utter stupidity of the American neoconservatives who are ensconced in positions of power and influence and in Hillary’s presidential campaign. A secondary cause is Europe’s vassal status, which deprives Europe of a sensible foreign policy and forces Europe to enable Washington’s aggression. What this means is that no matter what you think of Trump, if you vote for Hillary you are definitely voting for the end of the world. 4 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Iran Says It Is Capable Of Destroying Israel In Eight Minutes by NairaMinted: 11:23am On May 24, 2016 |
Zoharariel: Quite fascinating I must say and a tad bit too sensational as well. You sure the writer isn't f^cking with us? 2 Likes 1 Share |
Foreign Affairs / Re: ‘Unsafe And Unprofessional’: Chinese Intercept US Jet Over South China Sea by NairaMinted: 10:13am On May 19, 2016 |
From the Black Sea to the Straits of Hormuz to the Baltic Sea to the South China Sea; what do they all have in common? 4 Likes 3 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Compare - Obama & Putin Arrive In Antalya For G20 Summit. by NairaMinted: 8:31pm On May 18, 2016 |
bookface: Continue on that path you set on genius. Abi you are now backtracking? 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Compare - Obama & Putin Arrive In Antalya For G20 Summit. by NairaMinted: 5:34pm On May 18, 2016 |
bookface: Just WTF are you getting at? 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Compare - Obama & Putin Arrive In Antalya For G20 Summit. by NairaMinted: 2:04pm On May 18, 2016 |
Appleyard: Gaddamit Appleyard, just gaddamit! All these shots fired just to explain that Amerika is nothing but a mirage, a sham,a bubble, living on borrowed time? That it desperately seeks a war - with Europe as cannon fodder - to force a global financial reset? Abeg o! Don't let these food stamp dependent patriots lash out at you! 6 Likes 5 Shares |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (of 51 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 187 |