[Noumenon]

Haven't read it, but thats very true. I don't think any country is headed in a more right-wing direction. That is because politicians rarely give up power, they always want more. And moving in a left-wing direction generally gives them more power, while moving in a right wing direction gives them less.

And George Soros still isn't a true capitalist. He may have been strongly against communism, but he is also clearly against free market capitalism.

http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology ... apital.htm

Very interesting. So what is he then?

It's no wonder that the folks over on the Final Phase Forum hate Soros and in fact call him a "red capitalist"!

Well he's a liberal, obviously. US liberals favor a mixed economy, with some socialism and some capitalism. They hate the extremes.

As I have already said and made clear: Red Imperialism is actually more than acceptable in my books - because is done in the simple interests of the people.

You mean its done in what you think is the interest of the people. I happen to think pure capitalism is in the interests of the people. Does that make it okay to conquer the world in the name of capitalism?

Everyone thinks their own idealogy is in the best interest of the people.

Tis the sad reality of nuclear warfare

The sad reality is that nuclear warfare would murder millions of people. But you still advocate it. If you only want to destroy the military bases, why not advocate mini-nukes or conventional warfare?

This is just outlining your obvious opinions of Marx and Marxism as a right-wing American, and comparing it to German Nazism.

You are right, I don't see a whole lot of difference. That is because I look at the world from a point of view of what limits and what enhances freedom. Communism limits personal freedom by limiting your ability to freely trade with your neighbors. Nazism does that as well, just for a different reason (glory of the state or race or whatever). Both seem to me to be militant idealogies that advocate use of brute force to make people conform to their idea of the ideal society.

Maybe a suitable alternative is in fact in order instead then: how would you go about freeing the workers of the world, or would they in fact stay oppressed at the bloody hands of capitalism forever under your ideals?

I would advocate helping them through peaceful and voluntary ways (i.e. charity). If socialists and communists devoted their energies to helping people through charity, rather than through violence, they would do a lot more good for the poor.

Yes - but not if we get to the stage of separating people and government. This has been one of the big flaws of communism - if not the biggest - in its practice in the Twentieth Century that the right-wing anti-communists of both the West and the East have in fact picked-on on many a time and on many an occasion.

Replacing government with "voluntary cooperation" is utopian, it has no basis in reality. How would you get everyone to voluntarily cooperate? Kill all those with opinion different than yours? What would you do if someone chose not to cooperate?

The fact is that communism leads to dictatorship of some sort. It requires massive amounts of coercion to control the entire economy. Whether that is dictatorship of the few or the many makes little difference to the individual who is being oppressed by it.

Have you ever read Thomas More, and Utopia? He basically wrote that it should ideally really be a case of preventing the people of society - by peaceful means - from in fact falling below the highest common denominator. This is where Trotsky wanted to openly take communism eventually, but the major main problem society was not - and socialism was ultimately not - ready at all for that stage yet. Utopianism. Or true communism.

I've read parts of it. Evidence for the failure of utopian idealogies is everywhere. Free market capitalism is not utopian. It does not claim to eliminate poverty or anything. What it does claim is to give people opportunity to advance themselves. The problem of poverty is something to be solved by good-will and willingness to give up some of your time to help others. Not by militant idealogies. The thing about capitalism is that it gives people enough prosperity so that they actually have the extra time and money to help the poor. That is why Americans gave $250 billion to charity in 2002 (no doubt they would give more if the government didn't take away almost half their money).

The difference between us is that I believe people are naturally good. They will help the poor if they have the chance. You believe that people are naturally selfish and evil, and must be forced to help the poor.

Freeing the workers from their unjust, capitalist chains is "evil"?

"The ends justify the means".

I don't believe the ends ever justify the means (unless the survival of the human race was at stake or something). Rights should always be respected - the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. No goal can justify violating those.

[Damien]

How would post-TFP world communism benefit the world?

I mean I remember that moment when Yeltsin took power, my error.

Yeltsin of-couse having been handpicked by the Communist strategists as a genuine reformer in order to fulfil his role in completing Russia's strategic "capitalist" transformation, which he successfully in fact did during the deliberately-turbulent 1990s decade.

As I have already said and made clear: Red Imperialism is actually more than acceptable in my books - because is done in the simple interests of the people.

No, it's not. The people do not want Russia to start a nuclear war with anyone. They don't want any communist revolution. They don't want all that. Face it, the "people's army" has abandoned its people and instead is catering to the leaders.

No, the "people's army" has not in fact abandoned its people - the people just don't know about its very presence anymore. So let's now just consider what Krutov in fact said for a moment though; "We DID give up power in the Soviet Union (but without destroying our agent network but without destroying our agent network—we became a shadow force behind Russia), to show the Russian people what life under capitalism to show the Russian people what life under capitalism means. Now, disgusted and oppressed, they are calling us to help them. And we will come back".

Deny that this is true!:eek:

This is just outlining your obvious opinions of Marx and Marxism as a right-wing American, and comparing it to German Nazism.

So a marxist can only comment upon this thread?

No - anyone can. I.e.: we have already had Siberian Fox - a capitalist - comment on this particular thread.

Maybe a suitable alternative is in fact in order instead then: how would you go about freeing the workers of the world, or would they in fact stay oppressed at the bloody hands of capitalism forever under your ideals?

Well, for one thing, I would free them from communist opression, and then theocratical opression, then then dictatoral opression. Capitalist "opression" would stay.

Then the nuclear option is sadly truly unavoidable.

No we shouldn't - selling them into capitalism and its all-consuming machine is absolutely the last thing that we should want to do!:eek:

The all-consuming communist machine is worse.

Don't believe these McCarthyist-era capitalist lies.

At least I bother. I very much strongly doubt that Stalin and/or Khrushchev would have bothered to put pen down to paper and write to every leftist or left-winger in the West in order to just give them some kind of an advanced warning that the Cuban missile crisis and hence subsequently relations between the two major power blocs were about to turn nuclear. Maybe Castro and Honecker, but that would most likely have been all.

Still doesn't explain how you want to destroy the "unpure" rightists and non-slavs.

1. Rightists would quite simply no longer be necessary in a truly "soicalist" society. They are just still actually needed as a perfectly valid political opposition in an old ongoing capitalist society such as in Britain, but not beyond that if we follow Marx correctly,
2. "Leftists" includes non-Slavs.

Freeing the workers from their unjust, capitalist chains is "evil"?:?:

Communist chains are worse. They rape you no matter what you do. At least with capitalism you have a chance to move ahead.

Do those traigically misfortunate people who sleep in Shelter homes have a serious chance to "move ahead" then?

What about those people who leave high school with no GCSEs or other credible recognised qualifications to their name then?:?:

"The ends justify the means".

Nuclear holocaust for a socialist society. No...no...I don't see it.

The Kremlin does.

To quote the Colonel in his own words, "What to us is yesterday's technology is to Americans tomorrow's technology".

So that explains why America has the most advanced military in thew face of the earth.

No it doesn't. It is in fact very worrying for the Americans as it is a key sign of secret Russian or Soviet technological - as well as military - superiority.

Surely we all know that these "spies" are in fact there?:?:

No, they're not.

The Central Intelligence Agency amongst others operate a vast net work of spies abroad. Even a relatively Third World desert country such as Israel can have spies in a major superpower such as the United States of America.

A Clinton-era Presidential Decision Directive - that Bush is, suicidally, not going to even amend while he is still in office - which basically states that the United States military will not be allowed to launch in retaliation on any state following a nuclear attack. (We partially saw this after September 11 with the, quite frankly, delayed United States invasion of Afghanistan.) They will have to and in fact must wait until later on. But with the United States nuclear installations being the main target of this, that will not at all be an easy thing for them to do. Hence the official American retaliation may not actually occur until perhaps years after the initial event!:eek:

By the way, who's to say if a nuke is launched this wouldn't just be discarded?

Remember that the Russians will also be sending over decoy warheads. They wisely will be taking no chances whatsoever.

However, something like a staggering 80% of the Russian people would in fact support this war. (After 1998, who wouldn't!:eek: )

Well, one, that figure is a complete lie, and I would like to see where you got that from (And something besides the colenol!)

Joel Skousen, actually.

You have also most embarrassingly spelt the word "Colonel" wrong.

and what does 1918 have to do with this?

I said "1998", idiot.

You most undeniably deserved that particular branding.

By the way, who's to say if a nuke is launched this wouldn't just be discarded?

I'm getting sick of having to repeat that America has second strike capability. And PDD-60 is not something that says America can't retaliate against a nuclear attack.

And I'm getting sick of having to repeat that America can only launch its second strike capability on an advanced warning first. The coming Russian nuclear strikes will just not be announced to the world or to America beforehand. I just cannot see that happening at present, or ever. It will come as a surprise and a shock greater that that occurred on September 11 to America and to the world, and, with this top-level military doctrine firmly in place, America will also have difficulty retaliating at their arch Soviet antagonists.

And if ICBM launches could be detected back in the 80s, they can certainly be detected now.

I'm not saying that they can't. That said though, don't not expect American military space satellites to be targeted during this coming period.

And even if everything on continental USA is destroyed, nuclear submarines will retaliate.

Not if PDD-60 in fact prohibits them from doing so in light of these attacks not being announced openly by the attacking Russians beforehand, hence nulling the military doctrine and all of its clauses contained within.

Why the hell would anybody watch a country get destroyed and sit by and watch?

This is the first time that I have been asked this question and believe me the answer is by no means simple. It is likely to occur in this way because the leaders of United States know that they have a better chance of not only defeating Russia but later establishing their long-desired, long-dreamed of world hegemony through the United Nations. This is really out of my field though and for more on this then please consult Joel Skousen.

(Actually I'm just not thinking that far ahead as yet.)

I can actually see submariners taking maters into their own hands and acting even without direct orders.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me one bit. Surely we have all seen The Hunt for Red October - and that was under Gorbachëv, wasn't it?.

As I have already said and made clear: Red Imperialism is actually more than acceptable in my books - because is done in the simple interests of the people.

You mean its done in what you think is the interest of the people. I happen to think pure capitalism is in the interests of the people.

Plus the big multinational companies.

Does that make it okay to conquer the world in the name of capitalism?

Nearly every - if not every - American leader have in fact thought just that over the years. Surely you cannot seriously even try to refute this?

Tis the sad reality of nuclear warfare

The sad reality is that nuclear warfare would murder millions of people. But you still advocate it. If you only want to destroy the military bases, why not advocate mini-nukes or conventional warfare?

I would personally much prefer that. And believe me the Russians will use much more "conventional" means of warfare - such as ground troops and helicopter strikes - for their other areas of Eurasian interest such as mainland Europe and - perhaps - the Middle East respectively. Nuclear weapons are most certainly not their only tactical means of grabbing world military hegemony though, but they will most likely be used nonetheless.

Maybe a suitable alternative is in fact in order instead then: how would you go about freeing the workers of the world, or would they in fact stay oppressed at the bloody hands of capitalism forever under your ideals?

I would advocate helping them through peaceful and voluntary ways (i.e. charity). If socialists and communists devoted their energies to helping people through charity, rather than through violence, they would do a lot more good for the poor.

This is a good idea, but sadly one that will only really work on paper as long as the capitalists and the communists hate each other. A mutual trust is needed between them in order for this to be even remotely successful at the very least. Even then it will still be difficult in such places as the Muslim world, wherein the ever-undeserving fanatics will, just as they always do, "bite the hand that feeds them", so to speak.

Yes - but not if we get to the stage of separating people and government. This has been one of the big flaws of communism - if not the biggest - in its practice in the Twentieth Century that the right-wing anti-communists of both the West and the East have in fact picked-on on many a time and on many an occasion.

Replacing government with "voluntary cooperation" is utopian, it has no basis in reality.

You seem to have just proposed that very same idea that you now criticise though in relation to as just what exactly to do with the world's poor and a nation's poor and downtrodden as we have just discussed above.

How would you get everyone to voluntarily cooperate? Kill all those with opinion different than yours? What would you do if someone chose not to cooperate?

Who would ever want to honestly lover themselves to be "poor" once again in the first place though - bar the mentally insane.

The fact is that communism leads to dictatorship of some sort.

Not true communism though. The "dictatorship" thing - as in "the dictatorship of the (world) proletariat" idea that was originally obviously proposed by Marx himself - was only actually supposed to be a temporal phase in the all-important transition from capitalism to communism. But Lenin, in his all-referential interpretation of Marxism, perceived this as being more of a permanent phase. This is where the strong dictatorship - even socially totalitarian as well as nationally totalitarian - element really emerges from into the ideology of "communism". The Stalinist model of nationalism only served to further strengthen this. But either way, with the conditions of cold war that prevailed throughout much of the Twentieth Century, that stage of pure, true, all-out international - or even national for that matter - More-esque utopianism was always going to be as far beyond the conceivable reach of Marx as well as Stalin, however much both men would have very much liked to have seen it. (Although you could argue that Stalin was in fact perfectly satisfied and content with his own "one step forward, two steps back" - Lenin - model of communism and did not really care for total world revolution in the ways that both Lenin and Trotsky did, however much Stalin did himself while he was still in office to encourage it. Look for example at his murder of Trotsky and the destruction of Trotskyism at his hands both at home and abroad.)

It requires massive amounts of coercion to control the entire economy. Whether that is dictatorship of the few or the many makes little difference to the individual who is being oppressed by it.

But how the More-Trotskyite society honestly "oppress" anyone?:?:

Have you ever read Thomas More, and Utopia? He basically wrote that it should ideally really be a case of preventing the people of society - by peaceful means - from in fact falling below the highest common denominator. This is where Trotsky wanted to openly take communism eventually, but the major main problem society was not - and socialism was ultimately not - ready at all for that stage yet. Utopianism. Or true communism.

I've read parts of it. Evidence for the failure of utopian idealogies is everywhere.

More =fiction,
Marx = fact.

Free market capitalism is not utopian. It does not claim to eliminate poverty or anything.

Then, considering its own credited crimes over the years, it is little better as a suitable alternative quite frankly, in my view.

What it does claim is to give people opportunity to advance themselves.

Including he - or she - who sleeps on the streets?

What about class-based discrimination in the workplace too?

The problem of poverty is something to be solved by good-will and willingness to give up some of your time to help others. Not by militant idealogies. The thing about capitalism is that it gives people enough prosperity so that they actually have the extra time and money to help the poor. That is why Americans gave $250 billion to charity in 2002 (no doubt they would give more if the government didn't take away almost half their money).

The people yes, George W. Bush no.

You are right here on this one.

The difference between us is that I believe people are naturally good. They will help the poor if they have the chance. You believe that people are naturally selfish and evil, and must be forced to help the poor.

No - I believe that the Western governments are. Colonel Krutov in fact frequently talks about this. He says that it is the American Government and not in fact the American people who are the enemy of the Russian Government - although now also the good Russian people too, mainly thanks to Iraq and the bungling of the whole generally War on Terror. Believe me aswell - this will only worsen between now and "then".:eek:

I don't believe the ends ever justify the means (unless the survival of the human race was at stake or something). Rights should always be respected - the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. No goal can justify violating those.

Quite right. But what also about the right to equality?

So you are in fact a Soros-like libertarian capitalist in your political beliefs then, is that what you are in fact saying?

[Boondock Saint]

Damien.

Thats two strikes in one post.

No - anyone can. I.e.: we have already had Siberian Fox - a capitalist - comment on this particular thread.

You will not be implying things about admin or mods in my forum.

I said "1998", idiot.

You will not insult people, regardless of emoticons.

Now, I like you Damien I really do but the next time I see this I will edit everything you post and replace it with *I am a capitalist who broke the rules*

Thank you for your compliance.

[Damien]

Damien.

Thats two strikes in one post.

No - anyone can. I.e.: we have already had Siberian Fox - a capitalist - comment on this particular thread.

You will not be implying things about admin or mods in my forum.

[color=blue]Occupation: Petty-bourgeois capitalist in training

That was not an insult!>:

I said "1998", idiot.

You will not insult people, regardless of emoticons.

He has the nerve to chastise me and then make such a mistake himself. Note that I never insulted glinert when he mistook Lenin for Yeltsin!:eek:

[glinert]

Give him 3 strikes for calling me traitor TWICE!!!

[Damien]

Give him 3 strikes for calling me traitor TWICE!!!

I believe that you have some views on my mother that I should know of....

[STA]

The US has a submarine floating around somewhere that has enough firepower to blow up the world twice over (or more)

.. I dont think that is right.

[glinert]

I not following.

[Damien]

I not following.

Yes, haven't the tables just most suddenly turned now, glinert?

Boondock Saint informs me that the "Твою мать Damien." comment that you in fact made earlier on in this thread is concerning as it said something about my beloved mother.

Care to evaluate?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Damien,

PDD-60 does not prohibit the US from retaliating. PDD-60 is a change in strategy that abandons the stance that America must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. Instead, it says that Americas nuclear weapons will be a deterrent to keep other nations from attacking first by threatening a powerful retaliation.

As far as your Joel Skousen fella, I read what he said about evulating media information or disinformation for that matter. I liked what he had to say until he started talking about Satan.

Anyway, back to PDD-60

Here is an article:

Clinton Directive Changes Strategy On Nuclear Arms
Centering on Deterrence, Officials Drop Terms for Long Atomic War
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 7, 1997; Page A01

President Clinton last month issued new guidelines for the targeting of U.S. nuclear weapons, jettisoning a Cold War dictum that the military must be prepared to win a protracted nuclear war that would devastate the globe, according to senior administration officials.

Clinton's new orders to the Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff require instead that the military aim its nuclear forces to deter the use of nuclear arms against U.S. forces or allies simply by threatening a devastating response, and drop any planning for a long nuclear war, the officials said.

Clinton's highly classified directive replaces one signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and marks the first time since the end of the Cold War that nuclear targeting guidance issued at the presidential level formally recognizes that no nation would emerge as the victor in a major nuclear exchange, the officials said.

But the directive nonetheless calls for U.S. war planners to retain long-standing options for nuclear strikes against the military and civilian leadership and nuclear forces in Russia. Such planning reflects a widespread view among military officials in both nations that each side still poses a potential nuclear threat to the other -- even though Washington has proposed to give Moscow $242 million in foreign aid next year.

Several sources said the directive's language further allows targeters to broaden the list of sites that might be struck in the unlikely event of a nuclear exchange with China. In addition, the sources said, the directive contains language that would permit U.S. nuclear strikes after enemy attacks using chemical or biological weapons, an idea that has been hotly debated by independent arms control experts.

Clinton's action marks the first formal adjustment in 16 years of presidential policy for the targeting of U.S. nuclear weapons and could pave the way for further reductions in the total number of such weapons by requiring that fewer be held in reserve for a protracted war, several senior officials said.

But they added that the directive reflects more continuity than change in the military's effort to ensure that its strategic nuclear arms are ready to use at a moment's notice, an effort that costs an estimated $33 billion annually.

The document affirms, for example, that the United States will continue to rely on nuclear arms as a cornerstone of its national security for the "indefinite future," and that it will retain a triad of nuclear forces consisting of bombers, land-based missiles and submarine-based missiles, according to Robert G. Bell, a special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy at the National Security Council.

Independent critics of U.S. nuclear policy have suggested that Washington consider following the example of France, which gave up its vulnerable force of land-based strategic missiles, partly to save money and partly to undercut incentives for an enemy first-strike against such missiles. Both France and England rely solely on nuclear-equipped bombers and submarine weapons for deterrence.

Several sources said the presidential decision directive, known informally as a PDD, was prepared within an extraordinarily restricted circle of senior policymakers -- numbering no more than two dozen people -- from the National Security Council, the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State Department, as well as the office of Vice President Gore.

The document sets only broad targeting policy and will be translated over the next 10 months into more concrete military requirements -- such as preparations to strike specific targets -- by the military staff of the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), headquartered in Omaha, the officials said.

They said the directive was principally drafted by the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security, Franklin Miller, a career official who has worked on nuclear weapons issues at the Pentagon since 1981. In preparing the document, policymakers did not consult officials at the Department of Energy -- which designs and produces nuclear arms -- and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, including ACDA's director, John D. Holum, whom Clinton has nominated to become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security matters.

Bell declined in an interview Friday to specify the length of the directive, the date it was signed or its formal title; he also declined to answer questions about the countries it names as targets of U.S. nuclear arms. He said that the secretive deliberations were warranted by their extreme sensitivity and that the administration had not planned to make a public statement about the directive or discuss it with foreign governments. He said the White House agreed to comment only because The Washington Post was preparing an article on the directive.

"The presidential directive describes in general fashion the purposes U.S. nuclear weapons serve and provides broad guidance for military planners who prepare the actual operations plans and targeting plans for our nuclear forces," Bell said. It "recognizes that [because] we're at the end of the Cold War" and many changes have occurred in Russia and elsewhere over the past seven years, "nuclear weapons now play a smaller role in our nuclear security strategy than at any point during the nuclear era."

Bell, who was reading from notes, said that "most notably the PDD removes from presidential guidance all previous references to being able to wage a nuclear war successfully or to prevail in a nuclear war. . . . The emphasis in this PDD is therefore on deterring nuclear wars or the use of nuclear weapons at any level, not fighting [with] them."

At the same time, Bell added, "it would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no longer matter, or that they no longer matter to this administration." Such weapons are still needed to deter "aggression and coercion" by threatening a response that "would be certain and overwhelming and devastating." He noted that the directive still allows the United States to launch its weapons after receiving warning of attack -- but before incoming warheads detonate -- and also to be the first to employ nuclear arms in a conflict.
The directive was prepared in part at the urging of then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili and Gen. Eugene Habiger, the STRATCOM commander, who told Clinton last February that the requirements of Reagan's directive could not be met if the U.S. arsenal was reduced much below the ceiling of 3,000 to 3,500 weapons set by the 1993 START II treaty with Russia. When Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed the following month eventually to seek a new, lower ceiling of 2,000 to 2,500 weapons, the new guidance already was being drafted, Bell and other officials said.

The policy shift that Bell highlighted involves one of the most controversial features of Reagan's 1981 directive, which the Pentagon summarized in a 1982 classified document as requiring that U.S. nuclear forces "must prevail even under the condition of a prolonged war."

Many critics alleged then that preparing to fight such a war was ludicrous, given the certain destruction of U.S. and Soviet societies in a modest nuclear exchange; they also predicted that the military would squander huge sums trying to develop weaponry and communications systems purportedly capable of outlasting such an exchange.

Partly to quiet the controversy, Reagan signed a joint statement with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at a 1985 summit meeting pledging that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." But Bell said that until now, U.S. targeting policy did not reflect this rhetoric, because neither Reagan nor President George Bush had sought to amend the secret presidential directive.

Another senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said this policy shift is "significant" because it will enable the Pentagon to trim the number of nuclear weapons held in reserve for possible use after an initial nuclear exchange or two -- a force estimated at more than 1,000 warheads, out of the roughly 8,000 nuclear weapons now deployed on U.S. bomber aircraft and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.

But Leon Sloss, a former Pentagon official who was the principal drafter of Reagan's directive, said that in his view, "removing the idea of prevailing [in a nuclear war] . . . does not change the substance very much" because winning "would have been nice, but it was never very realistic" and the ambition did not greatly affect what the Pentagon did. "We were not in a position to prevail, even when we had 10,000 [deployed] nuclear weapons," Sloss said.

William Arkin, a nuclear expert who consults for various arms control groups, similarly called Clinton's policy shift superficial. "In theory, this could free up a lot of resources and brain power that go into preparing to fight World War IV. But as long as we remain wedded to the option of taking out all of their strategic forces and nuclear command systems with a hair-trigger attack posture, then we really haven't adjusted to the post-Cold War period," he said.

Bell said the new directive did not alter a previous requirement that target planners must be prepared in a crisis to offer the president various nuclear attack options, from initiating a major strike involving thousands of warheads to limited attacks involving a much smaller number of arms.

Since the late 1970s, for example, the military has had a special targeting plan for China that required U.S. weapons to be held in reserve for possible strikes against Beijing's handful of strategic warheads, its leadership, its petroleum supply and its electrical power system. The aim of the plan was to ensure that China could not become the world's most powerful nation following a general nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

Bell declined, however, to address a reported shift that would allow the military to plan attacks against a wider spectrum of targets in China, including the country's growing military-industrial complex and its improved conventional forces. Another official said there was "no debate with respect to the targeting of China," even though Clinton last month said he told Chinese President Jiang Zemin that he wanted to "establish cooperation, not conflict, as the model for U.S.-China relations in the 21st century."

According to a written statement to Congress in June by CIA Director George J. Tenet, "China is presently modernizing both the size and the quality of its strategic missile force. The qualitative modernization effort may be benefiting from Russian technology and expertise. Currently, a small number of China's strategic missiles have sufficient range to target large urban areas in the United States."

The directive also demands general planning for potential nuclear strikes against other nations that have what Bell called "prospective access" to nuclear weapons and that are now or may eventually become hostile to the United States. A separate official described these countries as "rogue states" specifically listed in the directive as possible targets in the event of regional conflicts or crises.

The idea of targeting non-nuclear states with U.S. nuclear weapons or planning for U.S. nuclear strikes in retaliation for poison gas and germ weapons attacks has become increasingly controversial since 1995. At that time, the United States and the four other major nuclear powers -- Britain, China, Russia and France -- formally pledged not to use nuclear arms or threaten their use against countries that are not trying to develop or acquire nuclear arms.

Bell said Clinton's nuclear targeting directive reflects "much greater sensitivity to the threats" posed by chemical and biological attacks since the previous directive was issued. But he added that it only reiterates what senior administration officials already have said about the issue during the past year -- namely, that if any nation uses weapons of mass destruction against the United States, it may "forfeit" its protection from U.S. nuclear attack under the 1995 pledge.

Remember that the Russians will also be sending over decoy warheads. They wisely will be taking no chances whatsoever.

I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. If you point a decoy weapon at me, i'll shoot you with a real one anyway.

The coming Russian nuclear strikes will just not be announced to the world or to America beforehand.

And who would announce a nuclear first strike? Advanced warning does not mean Russia announcing its plan to launch. Advaced warning can come from intelligence sources and from satelite detection. BTW, if Russia takes out American satelites, that's enough of a provocation to launch nuclear warheads at Russia. PDD-60 does not say America cannot.
Also, military doctrines can and do get ignored if that is what circumstances dictate.

This is the first time that I have been asked this question and believe me the answer is by no means simple. It is likely to occur in this way because the leaders of United States know that they have a better chance of not only defeating Russia but later establishing their long-desired, long-dreamed of world hegemony through the United

I was actually talking about American submariners who may take action into their own hands.

[glinert]

Tables have not turned you man who called me traitor. I think that worse than any small curse word or swear word.

[Vassili Zaitsev]

[quote=Damien]

Colonel Krutov[/quote]

That is so laughable. For one that man is not a colonel. The Soviet uniform he is wearing is that of a general! You can tell by the special collar leaf boards! And the special red piping along the collar. And the shirt under the jacket, is that regulation clothing? I thought the service shirts were olive green with a matching tie? He is wearing a dark blue shirt with no tie! And the visor cap is a general's cap too. And it doesn't even match with the service uniform! Its white, when it should be dark olive green like the jacket. I'm sorry Damien, but that man is not a colonel. And I find it hard to believe from that pictuere he is a general. And I doubt he is a real soldier as well. No colonel would be dressed like that in the Soviet armed forces.

[Josh]

Colonel Krutov

That is so laughable. For one that man is not a colonel. The Soviet uniform he is wearing is that of a general! You can tell by the special collar leaf boards! And the special red piping along the collar. And the shirt under the jacket, is that regulation clothing? I thought the service shirts were olive green with a matching tie? He is wearing a dark blue shirt with no tie! And the visor cap is a general's cap too. And it doesn't even match with the service uniform! Its white, when it should be dark olive green like the jacket. I'm sorry Damien, but that man is not a colonel. And I find it hard to believe from that pictuere he is a general. And I doubt he is a real soldier as well. No colonel would be dressed like that in the Soviet armed forces.

I was waiting for somebody to bring up how much of an obvious fabrication that picture is. I'm sorry Damien, but Vassili just owned you. Of course, the evil sneer, lack of overall "uniform" congruency, and that newspaper in his hand all pointed to the picture's being false in the first place. That just... doesn't look like a newspaper. Then again, they may use different paper in Russia. But still, that picture just... made me laugh. You'd think that, being a General (or Colonel, Major, or whatever he's pretending to be), the man would be clean-shaven.

[Attila The Nun]

Yeltsin of-couse having been handpicked by the Communist strategists as a genuine reformer in order to fulfil his role in completing Russia's strategic "capitalist" transformation, which he successfully in fact did during the deliberately-turbulent 1990s decade.

BS. Pure, BS. Yeltsin was a pure capitalist.

No, the "people's army" has not in fact abandoned its people - the people just don't know about its very presence anymore. So let's now just consider what Krutov in fact said for a moment though; "We DID give up power in the Soviet Union (but without destroying our agent network but without destroying our agent network—we became a shadow force behind Russia), to show the Russian people what life under capitalism to show the Russian people what life under capitalism means. Now, disgusted and oppressed, they are calling us to help them. And we will come back".

Maybe you're right. Maybe the people abandoned the "people's army" instead of the other way around.

Deny that this is true!:eek:

Ok, I deny this is true.

No - anyone can. I.e.: we have already had Siberian Fox - a capitalist - comment on this particular thread.

So you hold this against him?

Then the nuclear option is sadly truly unavoidable.

I would do it with conventional war, and dimlomacy. It's much better.

Don't believe these McCarthyist-era capitalist lies.

Surely you don't remember Russia's horrible conditions during a large part of their communist regime?

1. Rightists would quite simply no longer be necessary in a truly "soicalist" society. They are just still actually needed as a perfectly valid political opposition in an old ongoing capitalist society such as in Britain, but not beyond that if we follow Marx correctly,
2. "Leftists" includes non-Slavs.[/quuote]

So you support genocide based on political beliefs. Explain to me why you're better than Hitler again.

Do those traigically misfortunate people who sleep in Shelter homes have a serious chance to "move ahead" then?

Hey, poor people who were filthy and couldn't even speak english did it.

What about those people who leave high school with no GCSEs or other credible recognised qualifications to their name then?:?:

Idiots who drop out of highschool (unless it was to support the family) don't deserve my pity.

The Kremlin does.

Well, you do...at least...

No it doesn't. It is in fact very worrying for the Americans as it is a key sign of secret Russian or Soviet technological - as well as military - superiority.

Russia has never been ahead technologically, what makes this so different?

Remember that the Russians will also be sending over decoy warheads. They wisely will be taking no chances whatsoever.

So, Russia launched a fake nuke, what's to stop the US from thinking its real and launching a real nuke at Moscow?

Joel Skousen, actually.

Well, whatever, it's a BS "survey" if it was ever recorded to begin with.

Nearly every - if not every - American leader have in fact thought just that over the years. Surely you cannot seriously even try to refute this?

I could have sworn Jimmy Carter was about peace...

[glinert]

Vassili, you right I not noticed it but now that I do, that not even general uniform. NO soviet officer would be caught dead wearing something so outrageously off. That very wrong and false. Also Colonel rank senior officer but some tings on him signify not really.

Also look at his facial expression. Please.

[Attila The Nun]

Also look at his facial expression. Please.

He's obviously constipated.

[glinert]

We not allow people like that into our nations army.

[U-235]

Little do you know I have conections that go far further than yours. The USSR is at this very moment constructing a massive fleet of Borg Cubes to annhilate the west.

Aha! I knew it, my cerebral implants were acting up again.

[Attila The Nun]

Aha! I knew it, my cerebral implants were acting up again.

You are such a nerd.

[glinert]

Damien, hear something, Russians now in secret base being given radioactive superpowers with radiation. Really Damien.

They given ability to FLY.

Also we being given morphed with bugs and humans to create bug human russian warriors.