I understand Usa, England and Canada. These countries are far away. But I don't understand European countries because if a war will be then countries of Europe will have damaged and Usa with Canada will bark at a safe distance about freedom and democracy .
USA and canada would be destroyed too, if a war happens. In fact, the whole northern hemisphere would be destroyed. only people living in africa and south america would maybe be fine. there are submarines with nukes all around, ready to strike at the big cities of both sides.. No, north america isn't safe, not at all.. It hasn't been safe since the cold war. that's what this whole talk of mutually assured destruction is all about.
One tank brigade with 87 M1A2 tanks and further equipment + 3,500 soldiers of 4th Infantry Division ... Well, honestly: because there is only the 2nd Cavalry Regiment as armored unit in Europe deployed before, why this hype about them now? What are 87 M1A1 or A2 tanks more at least...
Sorry ... but this was given! it was clearly given to Gorbatschov by the US President George W. Bush Sr. but very fast ignored and told that not valid for Russia what is BS of nonsense as argument!
may be, but so what? of all broken promises through history, this was very benign. What harm is there really from that a bunch of previously oppressed countries, weak and small, would join a defensive alliance? There is no harm at all.. unless you had intentions of subjugating them somehow.
A nuclear war will not be. The purpose of Usa or Canada is a local conflict with Russia on the territory of Poland or Baltic States. Pentagon's bastards think that they will strengthen NATO against Russia and force the EU to buy expensive shale gas from Usa.
You know what would benefit America? If we had less and less debt securities, so we aren't held hostage by ANYONE. Be it Russia, Europe, China or 4chan.
The problem is, Russia does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance. And with NATO's exercise through Libya, Russia is proven right and now NATO has no credibility with the Russian Government. Unless, Russia were to join NATO as a member nation(as I mentioned in one of my proposals.) Russia joining NATO and thus taking responsibility for the collective defense of the Eurasian hemisphere, is a guarantor of peace to the Baltics and to Europe. But for that, you have to lose your fear of Russia.
Where are you getting this info? The US takes the fight to every enemy. Europe would be the battle ground along with Africa.
nuclear war s what we're speaking of. even a chauvinist like you must know you would not survive that... as putin said, he could destroy the USA in an hour, and he is right, and that is what would happen if there was a war.
Well, ya, that's my point but many within the Pentagon have a hard-on for Russia. I'm not so sure Trump will be able to reverse that speeding train.
that was what we were talking about yes. what's your point? just trying to look stupid? you succeed, congratulations.
So we as citizens need to make it happen. Let me make it clear: If the U.S were the agricultural and technological power of the free world, then nothing could threaten us. It's always been overbloated military "powers" that fell. True world powers, are thus because of their financial strength. As a Nationalist, I want to make us a financial power not a military one.
There is no point. There will be no nuclear war that you're so scared about. Let's man up and leave it alone.
Only because we're involved in these stupid skirmishes. What does the fate of Syria have to do with the US? Nothing. What does the fate of the EU have to do with us? Nada. These peeps have been depending on us for decades now. And now, the free lunch is over.
Probably to close with and destroy US units and missiles based in Poland. Agreed. Correct. NATO has proven to be the aggressor all along. Many Russian nuclear warheads are Enhanced Radiation Weapons or low yield artillery fired atomic projectiles designed to destroy ground units invading Russia.
Um, if you're going to tell a story, then start at the beginning instead of in the middle. Eisenhower repeatedly begged Kennedy not to deploy Jupiter missiles to Italy and Turkey until the situation in Cuba had been resolved. Kennedy ignored Eisenhower's pleadings and haphazardly deployed the Jupiter missiles to Italy and Turkey (and also Matador non-ballistic missiles to the UK), threatening every man, woman and child in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. To counter the US missile deployment, the Soviets suddenly warmed up to Castro and placed Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles there. The Soviet Plan was a Win-Win Scenario: 1. Soviets force US/ withdrawal of Jupiter missiles while retaining missiles in Cuba = Soviet Win 2. Soviets maintain missiles in Cuba to counter the US threat = Soviet Win 3. Soviets force withdraw of Jupiter missiles in exchange for withdraw of Jupiter missiles = Soviet Win No matter how you look at it, the Soviets won the Cuban missile crisis, since the Soviets alone achieved their policy objectives, while the US did not. For the record, the US withdrew all Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey prior to Kennedy's assassination, while the Soviets did not complete the withdraw of missiles from Cuba until July 1967.