I can.Can anybody else see a parallel with 9/11?Ha-ha-ha-ha.During the Cold War era, Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR, hence the NATO, the bases, and the financial dependency of the entire world on the US to mutually maintain the whole thing.
Nonsense.The major idea of many NATO bases was to have the short-range nuclear weapon so close to the enemy that the enemy would have no chance to launch an attack.
That's very informative.Originally Posted by Marcus
В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.
Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет, а Америка вообще была неуязвима, сейчас - тем более. Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.
Alright, so first, please cite me saying that "the people of Western Europe were crying to save it from the USSR". I said "Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR" and when we mention a country what we mean is the government in that country, i.e. very specific people. Some people liked the USSR, others liked the US. There is no way to issue a blanket statement saying anything about people in Western Europe in general. So, as a result of Yalta conference, the world was divided between the powers and obviously those politicians which allied with the designated power of their region got the support and others met the resistance. And those governments expressed and formed the "national opinion". And all those who serves in the military and sacrifice their lives 'for their countries' is actually serving the plans of the specific politicians with their limited understanding of what needs to be done. So, I'm not sure what you were laughing at.
That's interesting. The USSR had the mightiest ground army in the world and the best weapon in the world of the time and you're saying everybody knew the USSR will not start another war in 5-10 years? After it had successfully absorbed the entire Eastern Europe and crushed the entire Kwantung Army 'liberating' huge territories in a week? That statement is laughable.
Then why such small Japan attacked the US in 1942? Was the US less invincible then? Perhaps, Japan had more military strength in 1942 than the USSR in 1945?
That's entirely another topic. All I'm saying - put yourself in the shoes of a NATO general. That general could be born in Canada, Australia, etc.
Ha-ha-ha. All military plans of a country which possess nuclear weapon are aggressive. No exceptions. The nuclear weapon in military service ensures the defense from any military intervention. Instead of making the defensive plans any nuclear country has plans for mitigating the risks of the nuclear weapon being destroyed by an enemy. And one of the strategic solutions is to diversify the locations and the methods of delivery. There are strategic missiles in the nuclear silos and the whole tactics of attack and defense of the silos, there are mobile nuclear units, there are nuclear submarines, aircraft, etc. If the enemy is successful in neutralizing the nuclear silos, it would be attacked by the nuclear bombs deployed from the aircraft launched from three or four military bases nearby. And it's good to have more bases, if some of them are destroyed, there would be others which would be able to launch the nuclear assault. The diversification in that case is a key for the strategic planning. If you find that nonsense, I think you should at least say what are the alternatives.
Флота у Советского Союза не было, авиация была слабее американской, и сам он был разорен войной.
Ok, so let me once more repeat what I said and what has caused so much laughter from your side: "During the Cold War era, Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR, hence the NATO, the bases, and the financial dependency of the entire world on the US to mutually maintain the whole thing." The Western Europe was more afraid of the USSR than the US. It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War. That process ultimately culminated in the Berlin Crisis. But, then the Caribbean Crisis broke out which made the US become more and more afraid for its own security.
Ничего Западная Европа не делала. Холодная война началась из-за желания США подчинить себе мир и убрать единственного, кто этому мешает. Прошло 40 лет, прежде чем мешающий понял, чего от него хотят.It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War
Would you be able to provide some logical and/or factual support to what you just said? Obviously, you know how the propaganda works...
Sorry, I'm not sure, but in my opinion, capitalism is not idealistic system to. Because it concentrate biggest part of capital in hands of a few people, multibillionaires. It give them unlimited power from rest people and create a different possibility between poor and rich.
Communism proposed same possibility for everyone. Proposal to transfer private property the country. It means to share with every inhabitant. It humanistic, but not realistic. Because few rich people in the world understand how its important: freedom. equality. brotherhood.
I'm sorry for gramma mistakes.
Ядерное оружие создает большой риск для нападающей стороны, поэтому просто так на них никто не нападет.
That is a blanket statement which is applicable in some cases and is not being applicable in the others. You can say that about almost anything and twist it the way you want.
Example:
Ivan has a gun/knife/stick, so nobody attacks him for no reason. The possible consequences are: (1) Everybody should carry a gun/knife/stick to feel safe. (2) If Ivan was being attacked, that was for a valid reason. (3) If you see see anybody with a gun/knife/stick, you should strike first with a better gun/knife/stick.
Everybody who attacks usually has reasons. If you are a country which is attacking another country with nuclear weapon, you have to first think how to neutralize that weapon or make sure the weapon won't reach you. Once the machine gun was percieved as a war stopper. Indeed, why to attack if the [especially fortified] defense could kill every approaching soldier in the range?
There's no better weapon or worse weapon or obsolete weapon. Every weapon kills. The fight is about the right weapon for the right situation and about creating situations that would benefit your weapon and disadvantage your enemy's weapon. The nuclear weapon is not an absolute weapon and not an exception to that rule. You can attack a country with nuclear weapon and win.
Besides, in case of a global nuclear exchange only about one fourth to one third of the world's population will die (including all factors according to the most pessimistic scenarios). Some more will die out of hunger later, but generally - it wouldn't be all that disasterous as many people think. The humanity will live on. In fact, in the world of global superpowers there is no place for other players so many nations will get a second chance once the main players will be out of the game.
P.S. What I mean is that some ideas start to pop in the minds of high-ranked generals around the world. By 2020 US might be able to neutralize all Russian nuclear forces and I doubt there will be anything that would stop them from using nukes again.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I agree, that threat is real. Nobody had cancelled the tactic nuclear weapons yet and in some cases (e.g. to destroy an aircraft carrier) that is one of the valid options. And it's obvious that some of the Russian strategic missiles would slip through causing that very global destruction you mentioned. I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.
ABM and high precision weapons. Even if some lucky missile slips through the grid, 10-15 million of civilian losses might be considered 'acceptable collateral damage'.I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.
Send me a PM if you need me.
You see, the USSR at Andropov's time had much better strategy without the high precision stuff. Conquer the continent and don't let the US to help it. Then, eventually the US would not be able to sustain NATO alone when the world market will shrink. So, the communists in the US would eventually win. Problem solved. (Of course, relatively young Andropov did not live long.) It won't be clean like that in case the NATO would assault Russia. Not sure if the 10-15 million is a price the US politicians would be willing to pay.
Not now, perhaps, not yet. But what can we say about the next decade with a relative certainity? I doubt the world's economy will be able to live through the current crisis without losses. What else? Everything will become more expensive, food included. The problems with migrants will become more and more serious, etc, etc, etc.
The Middle East has a very high chances to explode which will cause oil prices skyrocket. I'm not saying that this will surely happen, but the probabilities are rather high. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A global war will be a logical move at that point. It may sound strange, but a war can in fact provide a way out of the current stalemate, not the best way, but stupidity rules...
Send me a PM if you need me.
This is pretty interesting, I have a bit of catching up to do on this thread.
But in the meantime, can I just ask something? Did the USSR "admit" to being a "dictatorship of the proletariat" per Marx' writings, or not?
Or did it not consider itself to be a dictatorship...? I mea, since there were actual elections in the USSR as far as I am aware.
That's interesting
Where did you find this info, Hanna?
I don't know, I just remember hearing, back in those days that there WERE elections in Eastern Europe, just some restrictions as to what people could vote for. I.e. different shades of red, probably (???) And hearing about it on the news in my childhood. I.e. "In elections in the DDR, votes have been counted and 98% voted for the Communist party and Erich Honecker, the remainder voted for Socialist workers party"
And thinking - what is the point of having elections under such circumstances?
No doubt there were many people who DID believe in communism and were quite happy to vote for it. But there must have been plenty of people who preferred to vote for something else and considered the who thing silly and insulting.
At the end, certainly not. It considered itself a real democracy. Since 1936 everyone had equal rights, including the "former".
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote