Russia threatens to attack Poland... (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

Rev.6

[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

[3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

[4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

[5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

[10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

[11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

 

[flufhed]

This is bluster, to shore up Putin's position within Russia. No way he wants to confront NATO directly. The Russians have had enough problems trying to subdue Chechnya, and their incursion into Georgia has stretched them a little thin.Most are unaware that Russia now has 20 years of underinvestment in the military. Sure, they have nukes, and they have several good divisions, but afteer that the quality falls off dramatically. Russia's population is 140 million, and their economy is based primarily on oil. No way they are going to take on Europe and the USA, with a combined population of 600 million, and combined economies that are 10 times that of Russia.Much ado about nothing, mainly meant for domestic consumption, and to cow the smaller players.

ALTHOUGH . . .World Wars have been started over less . . .

 

[SofaKings]

"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when..."

 

[saintsfan]

This is bluster, to shore up Putin's position within Russia. No way he wants to confront NATO directly. The Russians have had enough problems trying to subdue Chechnya, and their incursion into Georgia has stretched them a little thin.Most are unaware that Russia now has 20 years of underinvestment in the military. Sure, they have nukes, and they have several good divisions, but afteer that the quality falls off dramatically. Russia's population is 140 million, and their economy is based primarily on oil. No way they are going to take on Europe and the USA, with a combined population of 600 million, and combined economies that are 10 times that of Russia.Much ado about nothing, mainly meant for domestic consumption, and to cow the smaller players.

I think this is Russia can't win this. Horribly outgunned. It would be suicide. Just flexing some muscle.However, if they do attempt to attack a NATO member, we would have to come to their defense and I believe we would.

 

[Fennis]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

I'm questioning the logistics. Russia attacks or invades Poland. How do we respond?

 

[saintsfan]

This is bluster, to shore up Putin's position within Russia. No way he wants to confront NATO directly. The Russians have had enough problems trying to subdue Chechnya, and their incursion into Georgia has stretched them a little thin.Most are unaware that Russia now has 20 years of underinvestment in the military. Sure, they have nukes, and they have several good divisions, but afteer that the quality falls off dramatically. Russia's population is 140 million, and their economy is based primarily on oil. No way they are going to take on Europe and the USA, with a combined population of 600 million, and combined economies that are 10 times that of Russia.Much ado about nothing, mainly meant for domestic consumption, and to cow the smaller players.

Someone’s feeling a little cocky after taking on the Iraqi Republican guard.

Not at all. We're not in a position to get involved in a land war in Europe, but if push came to shove, our Air Force plus the Europeans, would control the skies. And if we went to a war footing, the US GDP is $14 trillion, and their GDP is $2 trillion. No way the Russians want to tangle with that.

Not only that, but most of Western Europe, too. Don't forget, the EU is the largest or second largest economy and much of that is Germany, Britain, and France.Russia would be toast and Putin knows it.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Rev.6[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.[3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.[4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.[5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:[10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?[11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

GHOSTBUSTERS!!!

 

[shining path]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

I'm questioning the logistics. Russia attacks or invades Poland. How do we respond?

We still have large bases in Germany and a lot of troops, don't we? I'd assume a coalition of Britain, France, Germany, the US, and other assorted munchkins would mobilize and deploy to Poland.

 

[perry147]

Rev.6

[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

[3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

[4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

[5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

[10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

[11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse. There's a man goin' 'round takin' names. An' he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won't be treated all the same. There'll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.

The hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. For you partake of that last offered cup, Or disappear into the potter's ground. When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they'll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.

Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marchin' to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

In measured hundredweight and penny pound. When the man comes around.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him.

 

[adonis]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

There's quite a lot of wiggle room within that to fulfill the obligation to NATO, and to fall short of full-out war.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

I'm questioning the logistics. Russia attacks or invades Poland. How do we respond?

We still have large bases in Germany and a lot of troops, don't we? I'd assume a coalition of Britain, France, Germany, the US, and other assorted munchkins would mobilize and deploy to Poland.

I think it's anywhere from 50-70,000.

 

[Fennis]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

I'm questioning the logistics. Russia attacks or invades Poland. How do we respond?

If they invade a NATO country, full force attacks in return. Repositioning of troops from Iraq throughout Europe, open whatever fronts necessary. Air attacks deep into Russia. Hit them back harder than they hit Poland. Use of ground troops, air, etc.If its not an invasion it becomes a more difficult counter attack, more difficult to measure, but a military response would absolutely occur.

 

[Gnat Berries]

Russia can't have neighbors, only vassals or enemies.

Forgot who said that, but damn it is so true. The Russian people need one massive therapy session to get over Hitler and Napoleon. I know millions upon millions died, but it was a century ago, please stop acting like the jaded bully and take a farking valium.

 

[kaa]

You can bet that, if we had to honor NATO and defend Poland, it would be mostly American boys and girls going in to do it. Most of these euro nations have a shell of a military. They pour their money into social programs. They enjoy free health care and expect that if Russia comes knocking American GIs will die for them again.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously, say this isn't hyperbole, because it's clear the Georgian offensive was planned for a long time. What happens when we see a few Russin tank divisions starting to move in a way that can only be described as prepping for a fight in Poland. What is the response we give? Does Britian and France do anything?

Normally I would give you a or a for suggesting that France would do anything, but the way Sarkozy was sent home with his tail between his legs, I would think he'd relish the chance to show that Frenchmen aren't cheeze eating surrender monkeys that the rest of the world considers them.

But that's my question. Basically, does the western world have the will to do what would be needed here, and the leadership of the United States to do it?

It'd be hard to wage a war without our interests first being attacked. Sure, we'd support other countries...but full out war without first being hit? That's harder to sell, methinks.

So then if they go into Poland we do nothing and hope Britian and France do. Britian might, France won't. There will be UN meetings that are the talk of the world and the President, whoever he might be, will give a speech there. But Russia is on the security counsel and while the UN wastes its time, Russia keeps doing what it wants. At what point does Britian demand our help even though we or our important interests, haven't been hit yet with anything?

I think we supply troops, potentially as part of a larger coalition. But saying the US is at war with Russia? I think that'd be a bit more difficult to do without more aggression. There will be speeches, resolutions, troop mobilizations, but I just find it hard to believe the US would go to war with Russia without first being hit. Treaties would obligate us to help, but I can't see us pouring nearly all of our resources into it.

So NATO collapses.

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

I'm questioning the logistics. Russia attacks or invades Poland. How do we respond?

If they invade a NATO country, full force attacks in return. Repositioning of troops from Iraq throughout Europe, open whatever fronts necessary. Air attacks deep into Russia. Hit them back harder than they hit Poland. Use of ground troops, air, etc.If its not an invasion it becomes a more difficult counter attack, more difficult to measure, but a military response would absolutely occur.

I believe, perhaps wrongly, that Putin will not stand for a full force attack on Russia and air attacks which will likely lead to some form of an invasion of Russia. He can't be the strong man that he wants to be and not do everything he can to stop that. Everything. The end game here is not, and never has been good. Everyone knows this.If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

Venezuela

 

[St. Louis Bob]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

Venezuela

From Brazil, Peru or Central America?

 

[Fennis]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

I’m going to change what I said, if Russia in a single attack bombs a military base or energy station inside Poland the US or NATO would not respond with an attack back. Instead the response would be massing of troops, extreme rhetoric, economic sanctions, and fly-overs that would then lead to a direct conflict.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

Venezuela

From Brazil, Peru or Central America?

From here.

 

[perry147]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

Venezuela

We need to get the Chineese involved in this. A billion screaming #####man pouring over into Siberia would have the Russians looking over their shoulder.

 

[perry147]

Do the Russians even have a Navy anymore?

 

[Moe Green]

You can bet that, if we had to honor NATO and defend Poland, it would be mostly American boys and girls going in to do it. Most of these euro nations have a shell of a military. They pour their money into social programs. They enjoy free health care and expect that if Russia comes knocking American GIs will die for them again.

As nuts as you may be, this is pretty much true.If Russian really wants Poland, they'll have it. I don't think there would be enough resolve right now to prevent this, domestically or internationally.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

If it's not an invasion is, rightly so, the harder question. He bombs a Polish military base or primary energy station. Usually that would call for a similar response so we hit one of Russia's interests in the world. Who?

Venezuela

We need to get the Chineese involved in this. A billion screaming #####man pouring over into Siberia would have the Russians looking over their shoulder.

I'm pretty sure the Chinese find this humorous.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

 

[Poppa]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

You really think we'd do something?

I'd lead the marches demanding it.

NCCommishski...

 

[Gnat Berries]

Do the Russians even have a Navy anymore?

Ask a Georgian this.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Do the Russians even have a Navy anymore?

Of course.

 

[timschochet]

Some questions here for those connected to our military or who otherwise might know:

1. Does Russia still have the means to destroy us by launching ICBMs at America? Or can they destroy us with nuclear submarines that we cannot locate in time?

2. Is our SDI program anywhere near being able to defend us against a nuclear attack by Russia?

3. If we were to engage in a ground war with Russia, do they have the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons against us?

4. Given our superior technology (I'm assuming) could we be victorious in a military engagement with Russia without having to resort to a military draft? Or would we have to increase our manpower with a draft?

Anyone have the answers?

 

[timschochet]

And related to the above questions:

If Russia invaded Poland right now, what immediate steps could we take to defend Poland?

 

[T Bell]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

You? You, NCCommish? I have a greater responsibility . . . nevermind. Sorry, I got carried away.

 

[higgins]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

And you know this how, exactly? Are you speaking as someone who has worked on those programs? Just because there are some experts that are leery, does not mean something can't be done -- and just because something is done incrementally, does not mean it can't be done -- or would you have expected the Wright bros to have gone from their first plane to a P-51 mustang within a decade? Or, are you merely bringing this up because it's expensive?

 

[Christo]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

And Russia is on the security council...

So?

 

[T Bell]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

Germany might actually awaken from its post-Cold War sleep and pay some attention too. And the Czechs, and the Hungarians, and the Austrians.

This is a whole different kettle of fish than Georgia.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Some questions here for those connected to our military or who otherwise might know:

1. Does Russia still have the means to destroy us by launching ICBMs at America? Or can they destroy us with nuclear submarines that we cannot locate in time?

2. Is our SDI program anywhere near being able to defend us against a nuclear attack by Russia?

3. If we were to engage in a ground war with Russia, do they have the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons against us?

4. Given our superior technology (I'm assuming) could we be victorious in a military engagement with Russia without having to resort to a military draft? Or would we have to increase our manpower with a draft?

Anyone have the answers?

1-3 are addressed in this good article from a couple of years ago. In short, Russia's nuclear capability is a shell of what it once was. Missile defense, the other hand, isn't designed around protecting around a large scale attack, but a rogue or isolated launch.

 

[T Bell]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

And Russia is on the security council...

Mercy. Well, there goes the strongly worded letter!

 

[BigA]

little child

dry your crying eyes

how can I explain

the fear you feel inside

cause you were born

into this evil world

where man is killing man

but no one knows just why

what have we become

just look what we have done

all that we destroyed

you must build again

when the children cry

let them know we tried

cause when the children sing

then the new world begins

little child

you must show the way

to a better day

for all the young

cause you were born

for all the world to see

that we all can live

with love and peace

no more presidents

and all the wars will end

one united world

under god

when the children cry

let them know we tried

cause when the children sing

then the new world begins

what "have we" become

just look what we have done

all that we destroyed

you must build again

no more presidents

and all the wars will end

one united world

under god

when the children cry

let them know we tried

when the children fight

let them know it ain't right

when the children pray

let them know the way

cause when the children sing

then the new world begins

 

[St. Louis Bob]

The missile defense program is the worst mess we currently have in my eyes. Yes worse than Iraq. Because even though it will never work, Russia has to respond as if it will.

Just like the Apollo missions. Men on the moon.

 

[T Bell]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

Yeah, but think this through.Russia either bombs or invades Poland. We are either in the last months of the Bush Administration or in the first couple of the new one, whomever it might be. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is still a thorn and our economy is still considered bad by a majority of Americans even though it really isn't.

What administration has the popular will behind either retalitory bombing or using enough of amilitary force in Poland to do something about it? Do we send the troops to Poland and open them up to remove the Russians, or do we draw another line?

To me, this was always the sleeping back door problem that our current foreign policy never considered viable enough to plan for. I don't know if we can stop them from attacking Poland without doing something really really horrible.

You're talking like this is somewhere else in the world. This is NATO's back-#######-yard. Is there any conflict that, for example, Germany's excellent and quite modernized military is any better prepared for than this? The shooting will start and the U.S. will join in when it gets there. If it happened, which it won't. Putin isn't that stupid, and he knows that his military isn't strong enough. But this sure feels like 1938 all over again with Russia playing the part of Germany.

 

[T Bell]

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means, unless the tanks are already on their way.

Boy would that be a bad idea.

Really? Why? Who will stop them?

Us. Poland is a NATO member.

Yeah, but think this through.Russia either bombs or invades Poland. We are either in the last months of the Bush Administration or in the first couple of the new one, whomever it might be. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is still a thorn and our economy is still considered bad by a majority of Americans even though it really isn't.

What administration has the popular will behind either retalitory bombing or using enough of amilitary force in Poland to do something about it? Do we send the troops to Poland and open them up to remove the Russians, or do we draw another line?

To me, this was always the sleeping back door problem that our current foreign policy never considered viable enough to plan for. I don't know if we can stop them from attacking Poland without doing something really really horrible.

I don't think the American people would stand for it. As far as politics go I can't see anyone here allowing another invasion of Poland.

All but the most extreme peaceniks on the left and isolationists on the right would unify behind that, upcoming election be damned. This would be the strongest mandate Bush would end up having during his entire presidency with the exception of Afghanistan in 2001.

 

[timschochet]

Some questions here for those connected to our military or who otherwise might know:

1. Does Russia still have the means to destroy us by launching ICBMs at America? Or can they destroy us with nuclear submarines that we cannot locate in time?

2. Is our SDI program anywhere near being able to defend us against a nuclear attack by Russia?

3. If we were to engage in a ground war with Russia, do they have the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons against us?

4. Given our superior technology (I'm assuming) could we be victorious in a military engagement with Russia without having to resort to a military draft? Or would we have to increase our manpower with a draft?

Anyone have the answers?

1-3 are addressed in this good article from a couple of years ago. In short, Russia's nuclear capability is a shell of what it once was. Missile defense, the other hand, isn't designed around protecting around a large scale attack, but a rogue or isolated launch.

That's a real interesting article, thanks. But despite that it shows Russia's nuclear problems, they still have enough ICBMs that the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction is something we have to be aware of. But let's assume nukes are off the table, and Russia invades Poland. Can we defend Poland without warning? Do we have the military power without the necessity of a draft to do so? Can air power alone deter the Russian army? It seems to me we need to know the answers to all of these questions if we're going to have an intelligent conversation about this topic.

 

[T Bell]

FWIW, if this thing came to blows, I imagine Iran would team up with Russia.

I'm not hoping for this, but that would spell disaster for Iran if they did anything overt. Their best play as a Russian ally in a war would be to topple the Iraqi regime and install a Shia regime beholden to them, but our military in Iraq, small as it is, would ruin any conventional Iranian forces and believe it or not there'd be a Sunni coalition there in a heartbeat ready to back us up. Iran is more likely to just sit by and hoping that the blood-letting leaves them stronger relative to the world powers that have been trying to take away their nuclear program.

 

[T Bell]

If anyone is actually seriously debating if the US would go to war if a NATO country was attacked by Russia, doesn’t understand NATO or the US commitment to it.

There are few things the U.S. could do to destroy its international credibility more than to abandon NATO in the sort of crisis we're discussing. I'm not sure we'd do as much damage to our world standing by dropping a nuke on Tehran this evening as we would by abandoning NATO under such circumstances.

 

[T Bell]

Russia can't have neighbors, only vassals or enemies.Forgot who said that, but damn it is so true. The Russian people need one massive therapy session to get over Hitler and Napoleon. I know millions upon millions died, but it was a century ago, please stop acting like the jaded bully and take a farking valium.

Their mentality was like that for centuries before Napoleon. Russia, which is geographically mostly Asian, has always wanted to be a more European power and has always tried to move its influence to the west. People all too often use a Western paradigm when thinking about Russia, e.g. "there's no way they view things like that; that's so old fashioned", but that's the way they think. It's backwards the way that, for example, Z Machine's description of Spain's racism evokes backwardness. The truth is that the world has not changed as much as we'd like to think.

 

[jonessed]

It's hard to believe that there are people that really believe NATO wouldn't respond to an invasion of Poland. There wouldn't be a ground invasion to retake Poland because all of Europe's money is tied up in social programs, but there would be some serious infrastructure bombing. Russia still has a weak economy that relies on oil. You take out that infrastructure and they become a third world country overnight. Putin would have to be a serious madman to want to put that on his people... again.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Putin would have to be a serious madman

 

[T Bell]

It's hard to believe that there are people that really believe NATO wouldn't respond to an invasion of Poland. There wouldn't be a ground invasion to retake Poland because all of Europe's money is tied up in social programs, but there would be some serious infrastructure bombing. Russia still has a weak economy that relies on oil. You take out that infrastructure and they go back to being a third world country overnight. Putin would have to be a serious madman to want to put that on his people... again.

Putin doesn't care about his people, he cares about his power. He knows that Russia could never sustain much less prevail in such a conflict at the moment, so he's saber rattling with his neighbors not unlike Germany did in the 1930's, hoping to accomplish with bluffing or small scale and (he hopes) contained conflicts what he knows he'd fail to do with out and out military conquest. The problem with such characters is that a little bit of success gets them feeling invincible, and leads to larger conflicts. Hitler, for example, didn't think the West would really respond when he partitioned Poland with the Soviets in 1939. Japan was on the same track in China around the same time, but the U.S.'s insistence upon sanctions and economic reprisals led directly to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. I'm just not liking where this is heading longer term.

 

[T Bell]

Putin would have to be a serious madman

We use this word a lot, but he doesn't need to be a "madman". All he needs to be is someone who is playing a high stakes power game with a major nation, who goes too far one time. Putin's a rational actor, but he's certainly capable of miscalculating the risks of his actions. For that reason, it's counterproductive to simply label him a "madman" as it gravely oversimplifies the problem and underestimates him as an opponent.

 

[Green and Gold]

Alright, here is my theory.

Putin arranges for Bush to receive false information showing Iraq to have WMDs, causing the US to go to war without fully thinking it through. He correctly diagnoses Bush as a gunslinger without too much in the way of brains, so his plan works perfectly. Once Putin consolidates power in Russia and trains up his military, he instigates a conflict with Georgia as a test to see how the rest of the world reacts. The US, still tied up militarily in Iraq, responds impotently. Everyone else basically says, 'bad Russia', and glances nervously at each other. Putin knows he has a lot of rope before anyone even thinks of a war with Russia, so he begin to flex his country's muscle.

Putin most likely just wants Russia to be recognized again as a world power, which is sort of his job I suppose. If he allows the US to set up any kind of anti-missile defense in his own back yard, his nuclear threat is nullified and his country is neutered.