ww3

[The Starmaker]

ww3

Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...

and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!

Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?

But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.

Like for example, in ww2

Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????

But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.

And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!

So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.

The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.

Now, the 'Fact' is..

the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...

but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..


Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?

Why?

Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!

Now you asking yourself the Question,

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?


Let's go back to Question number one...

Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????


If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????

Japan had only six carriers and no other means to bring aircraft near to
Hawaii.

To start an aircraft from a carrier, the Japanese had to bring them from
the storage below the flight deck to that flight-deck, screw them
together and let them start.

This was necessary, because the flight-deck needed to be empty, because
the Japanese had no catapults.

But even very experienced Japanese plane-assemblers would need a few
minutes to bolt together each plane.

Now roughly 360 planes took part in the attack and had to start from one
of these six carriers.

This is 360 / 6 or sixty planes per carrier, which had to start there,
hence need to be assembled in advance.

Lets say, a team needs, say, an hour and ten planes could be assembled
at once, we would need six hours to assemble the entire attack formation
and let ist start from the carriers. Since ten could be assembled in
advance we could calculate with 5 hours.

In the meantime the planes, which started first would drop out off the
sky, because they are running out of fuel.

But they had to fly a long distance, drop many bombs and torpedoes and
fly back afterwards, where they had to cue in line, to be allowed to land.

But that would require fuel for:
5 hours assembly time,
1 hour flight,
10 min attack,
1 flight back and
5 hours disassembly,

(in total 12 hours and 10 min)

which these 'Zero' planes could not possibly carry.


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
we are at war again with
North Korea!

We are not at war in Ukraine.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?

Because he was not on the Manhattan Project. He did not nuclear
physics.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????

They were about to seize French Indochina and other goodies of
Denmark and other inactive European nation. The cargo ships would
pass between the Philippines and China. The operation was to take
those so the US could not attack Japanese ship from our Philippine
air fields.

Post by Thomas Heger
This was necessary, because the flight-deck needed to be empty,
because the Japanese had no catapults.

At that time carriers parked departing aircraft on the aft flight
deck. The aircraft used rest of the flight deck to the bow to lift
off. Landings used arresting cables so planes stopped on just a
part of the aft flight deck.

Post by Thomas Heger
But even very experienced Japanese plane-assemblers would need a
few minutes to bolt together each plane.

Other than raise wing tips on those planes, planes were fully
assembled.

Post by Thomas Heger
Lets say, a team needs, say, an hour and ten planes could be
assembled at once, we would need six hours to assemble the entire

Each carrier launched in about hour. USN carriers had slow
launches until the crews gained experience.

A few times planes were sent beyond their range and ditched.
Generally planes were sent to targets knowing they would have
enough fuel there and back again. Nagumo did not force returning
planes to ditch though that was a consideration in delaying his
strike.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????

Japan had only six carriers and no other means to bring aircraft near to
Hawaii.
To start an aircraft from a carrier, the Japanese had to bring them from
the storage below the flight deck to that flight-deck, screw them
together and let them start.
This was necessary, because the flight-deck needed to be empty, because
the Japanese had no catapults.
But even very experienced Japanese plane-assemblers would need a few
minutes to bolt together each plane.
Now roughly 360 planes took part in the attack and had to start from one
of these six carriers.
This is 360 / 6 or sixty planes per carrier, which had to start there,
hence need to be assembled in advance.
Lets say, a team needs, say, an hour and ten planes could be assembled
at once, we would need six hours to assemble the entire attack formation
and let ist start from the carriers. Since ten could be assembled in
advance we could calculate with 5 hours.
In the meantime the planes, which started first would drop out off the
sky, because they are running out of fuel.
But they had to fly a long distance, drop many bombs and torpedoes and
fly back afterwards, where they had to cue in line, to be allowed to land.
5 hours assembly time,
1 hour flight,
10 min attack,
1 flight back and
5 hours disassembly,
(in total 12 hours and 10 min)
which these 'Zero' planes could not possibly carry.

My guess about that event:

if the Japanese had no means to actually carry out the attack, then
somebody else had.

But who had the means and who would?

Well, there were a number of reasons to lure the USA into WWII and many
obstacles to overcome, because many US-citizens were actually
pro-Germany (and actually at least a little 'pro-Nazi', too).

Who would profit, if the US entered into that war?

Well, most likely the Soviets would, because the USSR was almost overrun
by German Wehrmacht at that time.

So, what would you think about this 'alternative version' (actually a
hypothesis) ???:

the US and the USSR government cut a deal, which included a fake attack
on the port of Pearl Harbor.

The planes were provided by Japan, flown by soviet pilots and serviced
and stationed on -say- Midway.


The rest was a HUGE show.



TH

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.

Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:



"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"

He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."


"by powerful, invisible allies"????


Now, I'm going to answer the first question:


Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????


The answer is very simple..

In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.


Japan was a proxy of Germany



"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!



Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.



I love war.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)

Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.


In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.

Albert Einstein's policy is:
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.



"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien




Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.


The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.


In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!


Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"

"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"


...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.



No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...


Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!




Following are quotes from Albert Einstein:


But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.


Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."


Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.

As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein

The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein

… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein

The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...

The reason why Albert Einstein turned down Israel's offer
to be President of Israel was because according to Albert Einstein..
he didn't want to be part of a Terroists Organization!

Albert Einstein considered Israel to be a Terroists Organization. A Terroist State!


I understand today the President of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu there is a warrant for his arrest.

i don't know
if there is a bounty
on his head, but i was
wondering how much is it?

I'll take him in, dead or alive if
thats what the wanted poster reads.
Is it a million? ten million??

I'm a bounty hunter!

It's a living.

who is suppose to pay me?


He won't give me no trouble..

I'LL FUCKING SLAP HIS HEAD!


It better me more than 200 dollars!

[Physfitfreak]

Post by The Starmaker
i don't know
if there is a bounty
on his head, but i was
wondering how much is it?
I'll take him in, dead or alive if
thats what the wanted poster reads.
Is it a million? ten million??
I'm a bounty hunter!
It's a living.
who is suppose to pay me?
He won't give me no trouble..
I'LL FUCKING SLAP HIS HEAD!
It better me more than 200 dollars!

Hehe :) If killing him solved any problem he'd be dead a long time back.

Problem is USA, not its stooges. USA is the number one problem in the
world. Getting worse too cause Americans have started sensing what's
coming to them. They thought their government was on their side :)

[The Starmaker]

So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?

I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..

wat up wit dese koreans anyway???

Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"

Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."


When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"

Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"


I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.

Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!


Fucking China is behind all dis...


dis world don't need chinks.

I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???




A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..

"Have you seen my brother?"

The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

I mean, let's be real here...

there is something no one wants to talk about...

China dropped a biologial weapon on the U.S.A because
China didn't like Trump's foreign policies.

You saw what it did. It closed down the store.

China will do it again (one way or another)


because China wants to be head of the world!


It's gonna take more than 2 bombs to make the chinks surrender.


dis is ww3 coming up..

i don't mind
i like war.

better than call of duty on xbox...


but the 'rage' won't go away.

Post by The Starmaker
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[%]

Post by The Starmaker
I mean, let's be real here...
there is something no one wants to talk about...
China dropped a biologial weapon on the U.S.A because
China didn't like Trump's foreign policies.
You saw what it did. It closed down the store.
China will do it again (one way or another)
because China wants to be head of the world!
It's gonna take more than 2 bombs to make the chinks surrender.
dis is ww3 coming up..
i don't mind
i like war.
better than call of duty on xbox...
but the 'rage' won't go away.

Post by The Starmaker
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

so

[The Starmaker]

Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise
Putin would have already dropped the bomb.

The Peace deal would consist of Putin's reason for invading Ukraine in
the first place.


When Putin first invaded Ukraine, I posted at that very moment WHY:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/v56zSjAEV2c/m/5rFiHr_dAAAJ

and it has not changed...

The Ukraine guy said if
i cannot be part of NATO
then I will put atomic bombs
pointing at Russia.

Russia said, "I cannot have that."

So, Russia needed to grab Ukraine
before it happens.


Putin wants the same deal he always wanted from the very beginning...

No atomic bombs pointing at Russia from Ukraine, and no NATO for
Ukraine.


dats the deal today.

Post by The Starmaker
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

Let me give you a short history..

Albert Einstein said nuclear weapons should
be pointing to Russia at the borders.

Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons, but
President Biden removed them from Ukraine.

Ukraine said if they didn't let him in NATO he
would put back the nuclear weapons.

Putin thought "I got to get Ukraine before dat happens!"


My peace plan would be to Putin...

"Okay Putin, you can keep the little land you
stole from Ukraine (under President Biden stupid corrupt admistration),
and I promise Ukraine will never be a member of NATO...but,
the nuclear weapons will be put back in pointing at you like
Albert Einstein first suggested."



Back to the way things used to be..

Post by The Starmaker
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise
Putin would have already dropped the bomb.
The Peace deal would consist of Putin's reason for invading Ukraine in
the first place.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/v56zSjAEV2c/m/5rFiHr_dAAAJ
and it has not changed...
The Ukraine guy said if
i cannot be part of NATO
then I will put atomic bombs
pointing at Russia.
Russia said, "I cannot have that."
So, Russia needed to grab Ukraine
before it happens.
Putin wants the same deal he always wanted from the very beginning...
No atomic bombs pointing at Russia from Ukraine, and no NATO for
Ukraine.
dats the deal today.

Post by The Starmaker
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker

Post by The Starmaker
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?

Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.

As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign
policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational
government.
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the
disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING
COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual
nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police
forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one
single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain
everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[Gronk]

Post by The Starmaker
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise

Which he can't legally do as a civilian.

Post by The Starmaker
Putin would have already dropped the bomb.
The Peace deal would consist of Putin's reason for invading Ukraine in
the first place.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/v56zSjAEV2c/m/5rFiHr_dAAAJ
and it has not changed...
The Ukraine guy said if

Who? And just what did this "Ukraine guy" say????

Post by The Starmaker
i cannot be part of NATO
then I will put atomic bombs
pointing at Russia.
Russia said, "I cannot have that."

When doe she invade Sweden and Finland?

Post by The Starmaker
So, Russia needed to grab Ukraine
before it happens.
Putin wants the same deal he always wanted from the very beginning...
No atomic bombs pointing at Russia from Ukraine, and no NATO for
Ukraine.

There are alreadyu atom bombs pointing at him.

Post by The Starmaker
dats the deal today.

#FelonDon's idea of a deal is to surrender.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Gronk

Post by The Starmaker
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise

Which he can't legally do as a civilian.

Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even
more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,
the US will stop supporting them. Otoh, if Russia refuses to engage in peace
talks, Trump will arm Ukraine to the teeth without restrictions.

Clearly, allowing Russia to have Ukraine gives China confidence in taking
Taiwan. Otoh, stopping Czar Vladimir dead in his tracks will warn China that
the west will not allow expansion by conquest in the modern world. The
developing administration (so far) seems aware of this.

NP: The Beatles - Lonesome Tears In My Eyes (Pop Go The Beatles, BBC Radio,
1963)

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill
Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even
more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,

I object to telling Ukraine what they will do. That is what
Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia. UK stripped them of the
invasion defences, and then did nothing when Mr Hitler marched in
to finish the job. Czechoslovakia was never consulted when
Chamberlain brought UK peace in their time which only lasted a
couple of years.

Ukraine has to live with the consequences of any peace. So let
them participate in what the peace will be.

I object to USA stomping and dictating terms to Ukraine. I would
like if the USA can help bring a peace both countries agree to.
idjt is such a poor deal maker I do not expect him to achieve the
success I want.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even
more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,

I object to telling Ukraine what they will do. That is what
Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia.

That's a bogus argument I won't let you get away with. What Chamberlain did was
to give the aggressor what he wanted - the very opposite of what we're doing
now.

Post by Siri Cruise
UK stripped them of the
invasion defences, and then did nothing when Mr Hitler marched in
to finish the job. Czechoslovakia was never consulted when
Chamberlain brought UK peace in their time which only lasted a
couple of years.

But Ukraine HAS been consulted, continually. Zelensky is forever on the move in
western capitals cultivating support for a war Ukraine wants very much to
pursue. Pacifists love to claim there's no such think as a just war. Certainly
there is no justification for Russia's aggression but Ukraine's defense of
itself is eminently justified.

Post by Siri Cruise
Ukraine has to live with the consequences of any peace. So let
them participate in what the peace will be.

I agree, Zelensky agrees, Trump and the rest of Europe agrees. Only Putin
doesn't care what happens to Ukraine as long as he ends up with the deed.

Post by Siri Cruise
I object to USA stomping and dictating terms to Ukraine. I would
like if the USA can help bring a peace both countries agree to.
idjt is such a poor deal maker I do not expect him to achieve the
success I want.

The USA is neither 'stomping' nor 'dictating terms' to Ukraine. Because of
Putin's possession of nukes, we've had to escalate cautiously and tie strings to
some of our aid as well as do what we could to make Europe responsible - we
can't be the entire planet's cop, judge and executioner. The other continents
and regions have to learn to take care of themselves because we'll soon have our
hands full in eastern Asia and we'll need our allies ready to help us.

In the end, Ukraine will end up losing some territory. What price Crimea?

NP: Go West - From Baltimore to Paris

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Siri Cruise
I object to telling Ukraine what they will do. That is what
Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia.

That's a bogus argument I won't let you get away with. What Chamberlain did was
to give the aggressor what he wanted - the very opposite of what we're doing
now.

And some are demanding that Ukraine abandon whatever Putin wants
or weapon deliveries stop.

Post by Governor Swill
But Ukraine HAS been consulted, continually. Zelensky is forever on the move in
western capitals cultivating support for a war Ukraine wants very much to

American politicians are all over the map. It was months for House
Magoos to get off their butts.

Post by Governor Swill
The USA is neither 'stomping' nor 'dictating terms' to Ukraine. Because of

Some americans are trying. Magoos spent months denying supplies to
Ukraine.

Post by Governor Swill
In the end, Ukraine will end up losing some territory. What price Crimea?

A lot depends on Putin's remaining lifespan. Once he is gone the
next tsar can abandon the war. How well Ukraine kills Russians can
shorten his lifespan.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Siri Cruise
I object to telling Ukraine what they will do. That is what
Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia.

That's a bogus argument I won't let you get away with. What Chamberlain did was
to give the aggressor what he wanted - the very opposite of what we're doing
now.

And some are demanding that Ukraine abandon whatever Putin wants
or weapon deliveries stop.

Those are in a tiny minority.

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
But Ukraine HAS been consulted, continually. Zelensky is forever on the move in
western capitals cultivating support for a war Ukraine wants very much to

American politicians are all over the map. It was months for House
Magoos to get off their butts.

Generally they overwhelmingly support Ukraine. The House dragged it's feet in a
failed attempt to cut overall spending.

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
The USA is neither 'stomping' nor 'dictating terms' to Ukraine. Because of

Some americans are trying. Magoos spent months denying supplies to
Ukraine.

But they seem to have become convinced since that Ukraine must not fall, or
Taiwan, and then the entire Pacific, will become at risk. Border expansion by
military means must be banned globally.

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
In the end, Ukraine will end up losing some territory. What price Crimea?

A lot depends on Putin's remaining lifespan. Once he is gone the
next tsar can abandon the war. How well Ukraine kills Russians can
shorten his lifespan.

True, dat.

Putin's legacy will include: The doubling of NATO's border with Russia, the
destruction of Russia's weapons stockpile as well as the reputation and
therefore sales of weapons, the loss of trust any other countries might have in
the word of the Kremlin.

NP: Steve Earle - Copperhead Road

[Bertietaylor]

Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Bertietaylor
Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.

Russia?

I agree.

NP: Go West - Never Let Them See You Sweat

[Bertietaylor]

(Bertietaylor)

Post by Bertietaylor
Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.

Russia?
I agree.

Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?

Only the terminally stupid can believe that.

Crows have more sense than apes.

NP: Go West - Never Let Them See You Sweat

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Bertietaylor

(Bertietaylor)

Post by Bertietaylor
Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.

Russia?
I agree.

Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.

The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.

The Russians have dug defense lines all over the place and can support
them from their home territory easily, while Nato troops had to walk all
the way from Poland to eastern Ukraine, which is more then 1000 km.

Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

Flight is also not recommended, since Russia has state of the art air
defense.

This would leave only land transport as feasible.

Unfortunately Ukraine is very large and VERY flat, hence Nato-troops
walking in from Poland had no protection whatsoever.

To make matters worse:

Russia was the main part of a country formerly known as 'USSR'. And that
country was a little paranoid about western invaders.

So Stalin and others left (most likely) some hidden facilities in the
Ukraine, for which (most likely) Russia has still the keys.

The entire country Ukraine is (most likely) full of Russian spies,
because Russian is and was a common language there and the FSB could
simply send anybody there with nothing more than a false passport.

My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

This makes everything really dangerous for Western troops, while the
Russians could simply sit and wait.


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Bertietaylor
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.

And the American colonies were laughed off the continent at the
silly idea of defeating the world's super power.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and
the Nato has a terrible one.

NATO has no position. It is not fighting.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Bertietaylor
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.

And the American colonies were laughed off the continent at the silly
idea of defeating the world's super power.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.

NATO has no position. It is not fighting.

Well, we have actually a 'proxy war', which is seemingly financed by
western powers and maintained by Ukrainians and Russians (plus solders
of fortune from various countries).

Now the Russians are the dominant power in this conflict, because
Russian military is many times stronger that the Ukrainian.

This will not change in the immediate future, if no Nato troops would
engage into that conflict, too.

I was writing about the hypothetical possibility, that this could happen.

In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.

I meant, that Russian missiles, submarines, mines and other weapons
could easily destroy US carriers and other ships, once they try to come
through the Bosporous.

The only alternative to the Black Sea would be the Baltic Sea.

But that is too narrow, too shallow and in the reach of Russian missiles
in the Kaliningrad district. It is also too far away.

This would exclude support of Nato troops by ships, what would leave
only land and air-transport.

Flight is fast, but would be VERY dangerous, since Russia has very good
anti-aircraft missiles, jet-fighters and other means.

This would leave only land transport and marching infantry, supported by
tanks.

But: the Ukraine is VERY large and VERY flat.

This would make walking there really dangerous, too, because the
landscape provides no protection at all.

The Russians have also an insane amount of tanks (and other armored
vehicles) and are essentially a 'land-fighting-nation'.

So: there is actually no feasible way to bring Nato troops to the front,
supposed that is wanted.

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Bertietaylor
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.

And the American colonies were laughed off the continent at the silly
idea of defeating the world's super power.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.

NATO has no position. It is not fighting.

Well, we have actually a 'proxy war', which is seemingly financed by
western powers and maintained by Ukrainians and Russians (plus solders
of fortune from various countries).
Now the Russians are the dominant power in this conflict, because
Russian military is many times stronger that the Ukrainian.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines
with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?

"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help"
<https://nypost.com/2024/12/16/world-news/russian-paramilitary-soldiers-killed-in-friendly-fire-attack-by-north-koreans-after-enlisting-dprk-help/>

Post by Thomas Heger
This will not change in the immediate future, if no Nato troops would
engage into that conflict, too.

Ukraine is proving you don't need NATO troops, you just need superior western
weapons.

Post by Thomas Heger
I was writing about the hypothetical possibility, that this could happen.
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.

Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!

Only an idiot would expect NATO to lose to Russia.

Post by Thomas Heger
I meant, that Russian missiles, submarines,

You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.

Post by Thomas Heger
mines and other weapons
could easily destroy US carriers and other ships, once they try to come
through the Bosporous.

LOL! The Russian Navy is hiding in the Sea of Azov and dares not come into the
Black Sea. Turkey and Romania have already neutralized Russians attempts to
mine Ukraine's trade routes.

Then there is the efficacy of Russian weapons.

*laugh, laugh, laugh*

Russia has already proved their best weapons are easily dealt with using western
countermeasures. Meanwhile, Russian air defense can't stop Ukraine from
striking Moscow, blowing up oil refineries all over western Russia, barracks and
military headquarters building throughout the south and S-400 systems in Crimea,
Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don using their OWN weapons. Turns out they didn't need
the ATACMS after all.

Post by Thomas Heger
The only alternative to the Black Sea would be the Baltic Sea.

... which is a NATO lake which, in the event of a NATO conflict, would be
quickly swept clean of Russian traffic.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that is too narrow, too shallow and in the reach of Russian missiles
in the Kaliningrad district. It is also too far away.

Putin has stripped Kaliningrad of it's defense systems to shore up his failures
in Ukraine. A NATO war with Russia would result in an independent Kaliningrad
joining NATO in a few years as "Konigsburg". And you seem to be unaware that
NATO is already moving troops into the Baltic and Polish fronts.

Post by Thomas Heger
This would exclude support of Nato troops by ships, what would leave
only land and air-transport.

The west has plenty of planes and trucks. Western navies could easily deliver
troops via the Baltic to the new war fronts in Finland and the Baltics.

Post by Thomas Heger
Flight is fast, but would be VERY dangerous, since Russia has very good
anti-aircraft missiles, jet-fighters and other means.

*laugh, laugh, laugh* Yeah, their anti aircraft defenses are so good they can't
handle all Ukraine's homemade drones, even the ones over flying Moscow. Their
jets and other planes are so vulnerable, Putin doesn't allow them to over fly
Ukrainian airspace.

Putin has 32 "stealth" fighters, ten of which are prototypes. NATO has hundreds
of F-35s out of the 1000 that have been built and that doesn't count the US
fleet of F-22s, B-2s and B-1s.

The US has obsoleted more models of stealth aircraft than Russia has ever
possessed.

Post by Thomas Heger
This would leave only land transport and marching infantry, supported by
tanks.
But: the Ukraine is VERY large and VERY flat.
This would make walking there really dangerous, too, because the
landscape provides no protection at all.

A fact the Russians are very aware of. LOL!

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have also an insane amount of tanks (and other armored
vehicles)

Not anymore, they don't.

Post by Thomas Heger
and are essentially a 'land-fighting-nation'.

They're essentially a bunch of corrupt yellow bellies.

Post by Thomas Heger
So: there is actually no feasible way to bring Nato troops to the front,
supposed that is wanted.

Is this Mighty, poking his head up to spout his Russian propaganda bullshit
again?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines
with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?

If it comes down to trading body for body, Russia has more future
cadavers. The question is how many dead sons and husbands will
Russia tolerate. The next tsar has no incentive to continue
Putin's folly.

Post by Governor Swill
"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help"

I wonder if Kim thought this out. Outside DPRK the soldiers are
being exposed to the wonders of the West. Like internet porn.
Their families are held hostage, but even if they come home, they
are going to talk about the wonders they beheld, like electric
lights at night and 3000 calorie meals.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.

Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!

NATO has plans to move French and German armies to the Baltic
states and Poland. I think Ukraine is in reach.

Post by Governor Swill
You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.

Drachinifel made two videos about the Russian Baltic fleet
attacking Japan (Voyage of the Damned).

The Russian Navy Sucks Supercut (Parts 1-6)
History of Everything

'And then it got worse.'

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
This would exclude support of Nato troops by ships, what would leave
only land and air-transport.

The west has plenty of planes and trucks. Western navies could easily deliver
troops via the Baltic to the new war fronts in Finland and the Baltics.

NATO has always assumed that in war reinforcements would come from
the USA, Canada, Norway, France, etc. It has had sixty years to
worry the details.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.

NATO has no position. It is not fighting.

Well, we have actually a 'proxy war', which is seemingly financed by
western powers and maintained by Ukrainians and Russians (plus solders
of fortune from various countries).
Now the Russians are the dominant power in this conflict, because
Russian military is many times stronger that the Ukrainian.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines
with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?
"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help"
<https://nypost.com/2024/12/16/world-news/russian-paramilitary-soldiers-killed-in-friendly-fire-attack-by-north-koreans-after-enlisting-dprk-help/>

Post by Thomas Heger
This will not change in the immediate future, if no Nato troops would
engage into that conflict, too.

Ukraine is proving you don't need NATO troops, you just need superior western
weapons.

Post by Thomas Heger
I was writing about the hypothetical possibility, that this could happen.
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.

Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!
Only an idiot would expect NATO to lose to Russia.

The Russians are not attacking the NATO.

Now the Russians have dug defense lines and wait there for western troops.

Such western troops would need to attack these entrenched forces, hence
Russians defend and Nato had to win an attack, supposed they wanted to
do that.

But the expectacions are rather chilling, since the Russians are already
there and have dug themselves in and wait.

This is a VERY unfortunate situation, supposed the Nato wanted to push
the Russians out of weatern Ukraine.


Difficult is, that Russia has all sorts of armour already in place,
while Nato had to bring its gear half around the globe.

This is extremely dangerous, because Russian controlled territory
surrounds the possible 'arena' in the eastern Ukraine.

This would enable the Russians to encircle large parts of a western
chorps there (kind of 'New Stalingrad').

The only real advantage of the west are far reaching drones and missiles.

But these cannot conquer a country, only damage it.

That's why ground forces are necessary.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
I meant, that Russian missiles, submarines,

You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.

Post by Thomas Heger
mines and other weapons
could easily destroy US carriers and other ships, once they try to come
through the Bosporous.

LOL! The Russian Navy is hiding in the Sea of Azov and dares not come into the
Black Sea. Turkey and Romania have already neutralized Russians attempts to
mine Ukraine's trade routes.

Sure.

But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

...


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in
case there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.

Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.

More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which
button to push.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.

Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.

The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.

This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt
countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.

At least I think so. The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several
thousand dollars.

This why I think about this country as the pinnacle of failure of states.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.

More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which
button to push.

Possible, but highly unlikely.

As far as I can tell, the Russians know how to handle their arms.

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.

True but a century earlier they thrashed the French. They also got lands
from Persia and reduced Poland and Lithuania. Lands from China and
Japan. Beat up Sweden, expanded South. They are big for a reason and
getting 12% of Ukraine is thin icing on the cake. Putin's main success
is political having China and thirdworld support and now buddy Trumpo in
power.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Bertietaylor
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French. They also got lands
from Persia and reduced Poland and Lithuania. Lands from China and
Japan. Beat up Sweden, expanded South. They are big for a reason and
getting 12% of Ukraine is thin icing on the cake. Putin's main success
is political having China and thirdworld support and now buddy Trumpo in
power.

And where are all those gains now?

[Governor Swill]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Bertietaylor
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French. They also got lands
from Persia and reduced Poland and Lithuania. Lands from China and
Japan. Beat up Sweden, expanded South. They are big for a reason and
getting 12% of Ukraine is thin icing on the cake. Putin's main success
is political having China and thirdworld support and now buddy Trumpo in
power.

And where are all those gains now?

<crickets>

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to  a separate peace.

True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.

Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.

The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what
the Prussians disliked.

The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.

From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate Prussians.

As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.


...

TH

[The Starmaker]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.
Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.
The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.
This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt
countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.
At least I think so. The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several
thousand dollars.
This why I think about this country as the pinnacle of failure of states.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.

More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which
button to push.

Possible, but highly unlikely.
As far as I can tell, the Russians know how to handle their arms.
TH

Lets not forget the Russians were the first to send a man in space.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.

Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

You're lying. Russia is not in this war to defend itself against an aggressor
neighbor like Hitler or Napoleon. It's Russia that's the aggressor. Russia's
victories on those two cases were because it had broad allied support from other
major powers. Russia didn't defeat either Hitler or Napoleon all by itself.

Post by Thomas Heger
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.

Stop eating the mushrooms.

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.

That's why they've stopped buying Russian energy, is it?

Post by Thomas Heger
The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.

That explains why Germany has been the biggest source of military and financial
aid in Europe.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt
countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.

You're describing Russia.

Post by Thomas Heger
At least I think so.

You seem to not think at all.

Post by Thomas Heger
The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several
thousand dollars.

So you got a hooker at a discount. So what.

Post by Thomas Heger
This why I think about this country as the pinnacle of failure of states.

Russia, yes, if you want an example of State failure, it is an archetypal
example.e

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.

More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which
button to push.

Possible, but highly unlikely.

Considering the state of their other weapons: missiles that turn back and
attack their own launch sites, others supposedly too fast to shoot down being
shot down, air defenses that don't protect their oil refineries, artillery
pieces or even their capitol, planes that fall out of the sky without a shot
being fired, thousands of destroyed tanks, rusty rifles and dud ammo missiles on
the front, Russian dead 3 to 1 against Ukraine ... yeah, we're all convinced of
the efficacy of Moscow's weapons systems.

Post by Thomas Heger
As far as I can tell, the Russians know how to handle their arms.

Arms? Perhaps. But those arms can't handle weapons.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

You're lying. Russia is not in this war to defend itself against an aggressor
neighbor like Hitler or Napoleon. It's Russia that's the aggressor. Russia's
victories on those two cases were because it had broad allied support from other
major powers. Russia didn't defeat either Hitler or Napoleon all by itself.

Post by Thomas Heger
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.

Germany and especially Berlin (where I live) looked like a place on the
Moon after the War.

Germans are scared by the bare possibility of anythings like this would
happen again.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.

That's why they've stopped buying Russian energy, is it?

Post by Thomas Heger
The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.

That explains why Germany has been the biggest source of military and financial
aid in Europe.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt
countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.

You're describing Russia.

Post by Thomas Heger
At least I think so.

You seem to not think at all.

Post by Thomas Heger
The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several
thousand dollars.

So you got a hooker at a discount. So what.

Human trafficing is among the most profitable businesses on the planet.

But it is also a terrible sin and all people involved deserve to go to hell.

And the ukrainan mob was heavily engaged in human trafficing.

...

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.

Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.

You're lying. Russia is not in this war to defend itself against an aggressor
neighbor like Hitler or Napoleon. It's Russia that's the aggressor. Russia's
victories on those two cases were because it had broad allied support from other
major powers. Russia didn't defeat either Hitler or Napoleon all by itself.

Post by Thomas Heger
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.

Germany and especially Berlin (where I live) looked like a place on the
Moon after the War.

Like much of eastern Ukraine.

Post by Thomas Heger
Germans are scared by the bare possibility of anythings like this would
happen again.

There's no evidence of that. They seem to have no problem weaning themselves
off Russian energy in record time and pouring tens of billions into Ukraine's
economy and defense.

It's Putin who's scared.

<snip>

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill
So you got a hooker at a discount. So what.

Human trafficing is among the most profitable businesses on the planet.
But it is also a terrible sin and all people involved deserve to go to hell.
And the ukrainan mob was heavily engaged in human trafficing.

You misspelled "Russian" again.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.
TH

Navy ships are getting obsolete too. No carrier or warship has any real
defense against "Hoot" type torpedoes carrying small nuclear warheads.
They cannot be intercepted. They're too fast, as fast as missiles but
inside water!

If it was not for Iranians' Hoot torpedoes, USA had attempted 100 times
to invade Iran's southern shores. They know they cannot do it, and
that's why it never happened.

That means warships are these days just means to eat up your tax money.
They don't have much war value.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on
the Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a
single button.
TH

Navy ships are getting obsolete too. No carrier or warship has any real
defense against "Hoot" type torpedoes carrying small nuclear warheads.
They cannot be intercepted. They're too fast, as fast as missiles but
inside water!
If it was not for Iranians' Hoot torpedoes, USA had attempted 100 times
to invade Iran's southern shores. They know they cannot do it, and
that's why it never happened.
That means warships are these days just means to eat up your tax money.
They don't have much war value.

I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy US-carriers from
within Turkey or Syria and while they are still passing through the
Dardanelles.

It is therefor almost impossible to enter with US carriers into the
Black Sea.

And without carriers, the Nato has no good options for a starting
position of fighter jets in a conflict with Russia.

In the end, the Crimean peninsula is essential for Russian defense.
That's why Russia will not give up the Krim and for no price.

This in turn would make it impossible for the Ukraine to win in any
meaningful way.

TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy
US-carriers from within Turkey

Russia attacking the USA from inside Turkey.

You are so silly.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy US-carriers
from within Turkey

Russia attacking the USA from inside Turkey.
You are so silly.

No, I meant this:

a carrier is safe, because it is almost entirely impossible to get near
enough to attack it.

But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the Bosporus,
it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to hide something
as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.

Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able to
emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.

Now the carrier cannot use the usual means against rockets, unless they
want to level half of Istanbul.

In effect the carrier is defenseless against attacks from land
'sideways', because missiles from land have extremely short distances to
travel, before they hit the carrier.

Also automated guns used against approaching rockets are not very
useful, because they would miss the rocket, but destroy Istanbul instead.

But longer ranged missiles are also possible e.g. from Syria.

Or how about mines or submarines?

But lets assume, the carrier made its way to the Black Sea (despite some
obstacles).

What could the Russians do then?

Well, they had several options, which are all dangerous.

E.g. they could send missiles from the Krim.

Or they send submarines or use something else, we have no imagination about.

TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the
Bosporus, it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to
hide something as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.
Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able
to emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.

All of us know about the Russian bunkers hid in the Oakland hills.
We just do not tell you about them.

Post by Thomas Heger
But longer ranged missiles are also possible e.g. from Syria.

We better expose the carriers quick before Syria finishes chasing
the Russians away.

Post by Thomas Heger
Or they send submarines or use something else, we have no
imagination about.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoAF_57th_Air_Base>

[The Starmaker]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the
Bosporus, it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to
hide something as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.
Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able
to emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.

All of us know about the Russian bunkers hid in the Oakland hills.
We just do not tell you about them.

I thought they were fat ass women from Russia....is your mother russian?


i wanna git in her ...bunker!


no, i'm gonna cruise in her bunker..


she'll go bonkers!


Whoa, your mamma got a fat ass siri!

are you sirious?

yeah man!

Ho's you sister's bunker?


i want some of dat!



are you sirious?



no, no, I'm just joking, i don't want no fat ass woman...


is your sister hot?

siriously?

i want some of dat!


is he on ticktwat?

[Governor Swill]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the
Bosporus, it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to
hide something as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.
Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able
to emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.

All of us know about the Russian bunkers hid in the Oakland hills.
We just do not tell you about them.

Post by Thomas Heger
But longer ranged missiles are also possible e.g. from Syria.

We better expose the carriers quick before Syria finishes chasing
the Russians away.

<giggle>

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
Or they send submarines or use something else, we have no
imagination about.

Perhaps the Kursk, Moskva or some other state of the art Russian sub.

Post by Siri Cruise
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoAF_57th_Air_Base>

<G>

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the Bosporus,
it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to hide something
as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.

You continue to show how ignorant you are. Carriers are forbidden access
through the Bosporus.

Further, there is no need for attacks from carriers, not even in Pacific Russia
(Alaska, Japan, S Korea, Philippines, US air and naval bases in the South China
Sea).

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.

Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on
the Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a
single button.
TH

Navy ships are getting obsolete too. No carrier or warship has any
real defense against "Hoot" type torpedoes carrying small nuclear
warheads. They cannot be intercepted. They're too fast, as fast as
missiles but inside water!
If it was not for Iranians' Hoot torpedoes, USA had attempted 100
times to invade Iran's southern shores. They know they cannot do it,
and that's why it never happened.
That means warships are these days just means to eat up your tax
money. They don't have much war value.

I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy US-carriers from
within Turkey or Syria and while they are still passing through the
Dardanelles.
It is therefor almost impossible to enter with US carriers into the
Black Sea.
And without carriers, the Nato has no good options for a starting
position of fighter jets in a conflict with Russia.
In the end, the Crimean peninsula is essential for Russian defense.
That's why Russia will not give up the Krim and for no price.
This in turn would make it impossible for the Ukraine to win in any
meaningful way.
TH

If war could solve any nato or u.s. problem, it had happened already.
The world nowadays can defend against USA and its allies. But they are
busy getting developed farther, becoming stronger, and raising their
level of life and happiness. That's why both Europe and USA can only
place sanctions against the world. They can't do anything else
whatsoever. No other options. And sanctions are losing its effectiveness
as BRICS nations increase in number and adopt the set of rules followed
by BRICS.

"We are the future, you are the past. I repeat: We are the future,
and you are the past."

- Raisi delivering speech in UN

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:25:38 +0100, Thomas Heger <***@web.de> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Thomas Heger
I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy US-carriers from
within Turkey or Syria and while they are still passing through the
Dardanelles.
It is therefor almost impossible to enter with US carriers into the
Black Sea.

You're showing your ignorance. Aircraft carriers are not allowed to move
between the Black and the Aegean per longstanding international treaty.

Post by Thomas Heger
And without carriers, the Nato has no good options for a starting
position of fighter jets in a conflict with Russia.

How about NATO's unsinkable carriers in western Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Sweden and points adjacent?
Moscow is within reach of Rammstein.

Post by Thomas Heger
In the end, the Crimean peninsula is essential for Russian defense.
That's why Russia will not give up the Krim and for no price.

Russians are liars and cheats.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum>

Post by Thomas Heger
This in turn would make it impossible for the Ukraine to win in any
meaningful way.

<laughs and points>

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.

NATO has no position. It is not fighting.

Well, we have actually a 'proxy war', which is seemingly financed by
western powers and maintained by Ukrainians and Russians (plus solders
of fortune from various countries).
Now the Russians are the dominant power in this conflict, because
Russian military is many times stronger that the Ukrainian.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines
with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?
"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help"
<https://nypost.com/2024/12/16/world-news/russian-paramilitary-soldiers-killed-in-friendly-fire-attack-by-north-koreans-after-enlisting-dprk-help/>

Post by Thomas Heger
This will not change in the immediate future, if no Nato troops would
engage into that conflict, too.

Ukraine is proving you don't need NATO troops, you just need superior western
weapons.

Post by Thomas Heger
I was writing about the hypothetical possibility, that this could happen.
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.

Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!
Only an idiot would expect NATO to lose to Russia.

The Russians are not attacking the NATO.

No? Who do you think is going to believe that Putin is not threatening Europe?

NATO and its members are supporting Ukraine against Russia precisely *because*
Russia is threatening NATO states.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now the Russians have dug defense lines and wait there for western troops.

Not going to help them much when their munitions plants go up in smoke and they
can't get food or ammo to the front.

Post by Thomas Heger
Such western troops would need to attack these entrenched forces, hence
Russians defend and Nato had to win an attack, supposed they wanted to
do that.

Starving troops are easier to flush out of trenches with cluster munitions.

Post by Thomas Heger
But the expectacions are rather chilling, since the Russians are already
there and have dug themselves in and wait.

And die. Nearly three quarters of a million casualties in three years. Russia's
most deadly war since 1945.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is a VERY unfortunate situation,

Caused entirely by Putin's power madness and hubris.

Post by Thomas Heger
supposed the Nato wanted to push
the Russians out of weatern Ukraine.

The Russians are in *western* Ukraine?

Post by Thomas Heger
Difficult is, that Russia has all sorts of armour already in place,

Keep telling yourself that. Russia has lost nearly half its operational armor
stockpile already. Putin has stripped his borders with the Baltics and Finland
as well as Kaliningrad of their defense systems because he doesn't have enough
to go around.

UK, France and Germany are not 'halfway around the globe'. Neither are American
stocks of tanks currently assigned to NATO operations stored in the dozens of US
military bases in Europe.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is extremely dangerous, because Russian controlled territory
surrounds the possible 'arena' in the eastern Ukraine.

If Ukraine can breach the border to take and hold large sections of Russia, I
have no worry that Russia will, in the end, be completely defeated.

Post by Thomas Heger
This would enable the Russians to encircle large parts of a western
chorps there (kind of 'New Stalingrad').

The only circle Russians can make is a circle jerk.

Post by Thomas Heger
The only real advantage of the west are far reaching drones and missiles.

Better trained and equipped troops. Better aircraft, basically, better
everything. Russian military tech and tactics would be laughable if they
weren't so tragic.

Post by Thomas Heger
But these cannot conquer a country, only damage it.
That's why ground forces are necessary.

And if Putin prods NATO and forces a direct confrontation, Russia will fall
within months. Remember that Putin's actions have resulted in 800 miles of new
NATO border all of which is being heavily reinforced daily. Finland has already
authorized the building of US bases near the Russian border while Germans and
other NATO troops are already at the Baltics' Russian borders.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
I meant, that Russian missiles, submarines,

You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.

Post by Thomas Heger
mines and other weapons
could easily destroy US carriers and other ships, once they try to come
through the Bosporous.

Aircraft carriers aren't allowed through the Bosporus, o ignorant one. They
aren't needed anyway. There are dozens of US and NATO airbases scattered across
Europe within easy reach of Russia and Ukraine.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill
LOL! The Russian Navy is hiding in the Sea of Azov and dares not come into the
Black Sea. Turkey and Romania have already neutralized Russians attempts to
mine Ukraine's trade routes.

Sure.
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines

You're not listening. Given the state of the rest of their navy (looking at the
Kursk, the Widow Maker and Admiral Kuznetsov) their submarines are shit. As
for mines, "Turkey and Romania have already neutralized Russians attempts to
mine Ukraine's trade routes."

Post by Thomas Heger
in case there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.

There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and
Romania are NATO members?

From their war with Japan over a hundred years ago to the embarrassment that is
the Admiral Kuznetsov, the sinking of the Moskva and being chased from the Black
Sea by a nation without a navy, the Russian Fleet has proved it is more a
liability than an asset.

The only thing you can count on from the Russian Navy is new, artful ways of
scamming public funds from the Russian treasury.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill
There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and
Romania are NATO members?

Bulgaria is also a NATO member with a Black Sea navy.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and
Romania are NATO members?

Bulgaria is also a NATO member with a Black Sea navy.

Right. I overlooked them.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill
There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and
Romania are NATO members?

Bulgaria is also a NATO member with a Black Sea navy.

Right. I overlooked them.

They are used to it.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

I do not know aircraft range from Romania over the Black Sea but
even without a war, USA and other NATO countries are flying out
Romania and Bulgaria over neutral waters.

Romania and Bulgaria have their own navies.

Grain ships are loaded across the Danube from Romania and then
sail along NATO territorial waters to the Mediterranean.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

Such as their Black Sea fleet is, it is busy defending dry docks.
And the sea floor.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

Such as their Black Sea fleet is, it is busy defending dry docks.
And the sea floor.

Russia's Black Seafloor fleet is made up of dozens of Russian surface ships
converted to submarines by Ukrainian military technology!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

Well, yes, but Russians don't need to.

In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while the
US-carriers are not.

Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians don't
need that many ships.

The Russians could launch missiles from the peninsula and could reach
from there every point in the Black Sea.

With such missiles they could sink NATO ships, while the NATO can't sink
the Crimean peninsula.

This is what makes the conflict asymmetric and enables the Russians to
sit behind their trenches and simply wait.

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.

The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.

Well, yes, but Russians don't need to.

*laughs and points* They sure felt the need to when they were blockading
Ukraine's exports. Now those trade routes are open again thanks to Turkey and
Romania.

Post by Thomas Heger
In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while the
US-carriers are not.

Crimea can only be such if it has Russian military planes on it, but it doesn't.
Putin doesn't dare let his air force get that close to Ukraine!

Post by Thomas Heger
Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians don't
need that many ships.

That's good, because they don't *have* many ships left.

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians could launch missiles from the peninsula and could reach
from there every point in the Black Sea.

Yet in three years they haven't done so. Why is that?

Post by Thomas Heger
With such missiles they could sink NATO ships, while the NATO can't sink
the Crimean peninsula.

Sevastopol used to be an important Russian Naval port. Now it's just rust and
cobwebs. Ukraine is routinely taking out Russian 300, 400 and even 500 air
defense systems while Russia has yet to launch anything successful from Crimea.
They can't even use their rail link across the Kerch anymore because Ukraine
damaged it so badly.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is what makes the conflict asymmetric and enables the Russians to
sit behind their trenches and simply wait.

Except they aren't 'simply waiting'. They're charging out of their trenches and
dying by the hundreds of thousands.

And their commanders are idiots.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger
Well, yes, but Russians don't need to.
In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while
the US-carriers are not.
Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians
don't need that many ships.

Ramstein Air Base is another unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Germany does have a Baltic navy which does sail in the Baltic.

[Thomas Heger]

Am Mittwoch000008, 08.01.2025 um 05:33 schrieb Siri Cruise:
...

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger
In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while the
US-carriers are not.
Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians don't
need that many ships.

Ramstein Air Base is another unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Germany does have a Baltic navy which does sail in the Baltic.

You didn't understand, what I tried to explain.

If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you need
to support them somehow.

To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where supply
could land.

You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.

The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black sea
(caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).

To balance these batteries the Nato would need ships, unless they want
to drive them over land to the front.

Flight is also a possibility, but rather dangerous, because Russians
have state of the art air defense.

In effect, you need to bring troops, armor and supply by land transport
from e.g. Poland, Germany or Romania.

The Baltic states are much closer, but difficult to support, because
they are tiny states, directly at the doorsteps of Russia.

In the end, Nato can only come upon land and had to bring support
through travels over the vast plains in the Ukraine.

The is exactly what the Nazis had tried - and lost.


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Siri Cruise
Ramstein Air Base is another unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Germany does have a Baltic navy which does sail in the Baltic.

You didn't understand, what I  tried to explain.

I understand you are a loony or troll.

If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you
need to support them somehow.
To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where
supply could land.

There is Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Germany,
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia proving unsinkable aircraft carriers.

You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.

All these aircraft carriers are accessible by Baltic Ocean,
Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Black as NATO member Turkey
decides. And ports thereupon have highways and trains to the
aircraft carrier. The Military Sealift Command and Air Mobility
Command can move odds and ends over the Atlantic Ocean.

The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black
sea (caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).

Antwerp, Frankfurt, and Le Havre are shiverring afrighted!

To balance these batteries the Nato would need ships, unless they
want to drive them over land to the front.

Or drive in from Poland and Romania.

Flight is also a possibility, but rather dangerous, because
Russians have state of the art air defense.

Ukraine has statier of the art defence defanging.

In effect, you need to bring troops, armor and supply by land
transport from e.g. Poland, Germany or Romania.

Which are so far from Ukraine.

The Baltic states are much closer, but difficult to support,
because they are tiny states, directly at the doorsteps of Russia.

Poland and Romania abut Ukraine. Germany abuts the abutters. All
are NATO members with extensive logistics practice.

In the end, Nato can only come upon land and had to bring support
through travels over the vast plains in the Ukraine.

Too bad no one has trucks.

The is exactly what the Nazis had tried - and lost.

Even back then the USA had trucks. Germany did not. Germany has
bought a few since. Ukraine is destroying Russian railroads all
over Russia, and Russian trucks are, well, problematic.

The US figured out airdrops in the olden days of Khe Sanh.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
You didn't understand, what I tried to explain.
If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you need
to support them somehow.
To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where supply
could land.
You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.

It is you who does not understand. By international treaty, a NATO member
controls the Bosporus and three NATO members have ports on the Black. Four NATO
members share land borders with Ukraine.

Yes, NATO will supply it's bases by land, air and sea. It's western supply and
logistics vs Russian supply and logistics.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
You didn't understand, what I tried to explain.
If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you need
to support them somehow.
To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where supply
could land.
You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.

It is you who does not understand. By international treaty, a NATO member
controls the Bosporus and three NATO members have ports on the Black. Four NATO
members share land borders with Ukraine.
Yes, NATO will supply it's bases by land, air and sea. It's western supply and
logistics vs Russian supply and logistics.

Once the Nato does, we have WWIII.

The Russians will inevitably sink all NATO warships, entering the Black
Sea (treaty or not), because they would regard this as Nato attack on
the Russian main land.

In case of Nato I wouldn't sail there, because the Russians have all
means necessary to destroy Nato ships and have incentive to do that.

Possibly the Russians have mercy with smaller boats, sailing to Romania.

But if a carrier shows up there, they would sink it.

Maybe I'm wrong, because in the end I'm not an expert. But I would not
recommend to check that out.


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russians will inevitably sink all NATO warships, entering the
Black Sea (treaty or not), because they would regard this as Nato
attack on the Russian main land.
In case of Nato I wouldn't sail there, because the Russians have
all means necessary to destroy Nato ships and have incentive to do
that.

Russian submarines patrol Poland. NATO is still working on depth
charges that will work in Lithuania.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Jack>

Post by Thomas Heger
Possibly the Russians have mercy with smaller boats, sailing to Romania.
But if a carrier shows up there, they would sink it.

It was a sad day when The Ramstein sank beneath the amber waves of
grain.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black sea
(caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).

LOL! Such is Russia's control over the Black that it's fleet is hiding in the
Sea of Azov! LOL!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black sea
(caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).

LOL! Such is Russia's control over the Black that it's fleet is hiding in the
Sea of Azov! LOL!

Russians do not need ships, because they can place their batteries on
the Krim.

This peninsula is unsinkable, while Nato ships are not.

Therefore it is an unsymmetrical situation, where the Russians have all
the advantages and Nato has very few.

It's similar to chess, where you have a certain kind of defense system.

This is already in place, well manned and well armed.

It would be REALLY silly, if western military would ignore the
possibility, that Russians have prepared already for a war in the Black Sea.

(btw: Russians are experts in chess)


TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger

LOL!  Such is Russia's control over the Black that it's fleet is
hiding in the
Sea of Azov!  LOL!

Russians do not need ships, because they can place their batteries
on the Krim.
This peninsula is unsinkable, while Nato ships are not.
Therefore it is an unsymmetrical situation, where the Russians
have all the advantages and Nato has very few.

The Romanian, Bulgarian, and Turkish navies are hiding in the
Mediterranean with no access to the Black Sea. And because none of
these three have any land near the Black Sea where they could
build missile batteries.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.

"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.

The KGB had agents everywhere.

And there is absolutely no reason at all to think, that they had no
agents in the Ukraine.

Actually nothings would be easier than that, because Ukraine is just
'next door', was formerly part of the same nation USSR, they share the
same history and speak mostly the same language.

To place a new FSB-agent there wouldn't cost much more than a train
ticket and a false passport.


TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Post by Thomas Heger
And there is absolutely no reason at all to think, that they had no
agents in the Ukraine.

And no reason to think Ukraine has no agents in Russia. Lots of sabotage going
on deep in the country.

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually nothings would be easier than that, because Ukraine is just
'next door', was formerly part of the same nation USSR, they share the
same history and speak mostly the same language.

So do the US and Canada but you don't see us invading them.

Post by Thomas Heger
To place a new FSB-agent there wouldn't cost much more than a train
ticket and a false passport.

Then we can just watch and wait for him to do something stupid - which shouldn't
take long.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

For instance, most chess world-champions in history were actually Russians.

I personally guess, that KGB was successful in a lot of cases, but not
with everything they tried.

But KGB kept silent, even after the operations, hence we cannot really
know, how successful they have been. But my guess is: they have been
quite successful.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
And there is absolutely no reason at all to think, that they had no
agents in the Ukraine.

And no reason to think Ukraine has no agents in Russia. Lots of sabotage going
on deep in the country.

Sure, but western agent were not very often successful in the former USSR.

Don't know why, because that is not really my field of expertise.

But I have heard, that Russians were quite good in detecting agents.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually nothings would be easier than that, because Ukraine is just
'next door', was formerly part of the same nation USSR, they share the
same history and speak mostly the same language.

So do the US and Canada but you don't see us invading them.

I have heard recently, the new president wants just that.

(He also allegedly wants Greenland for some odd reasons.)

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
To place a new FSB-agent there wouldn't cost much more than a train
ticket and a false passport.

Then we can just watch and wait for him to do something stupid - which shouldn't
take long.

I don't know, but I would guess, that tons of Russian agents are already
operating in the Ukraine.

TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed.  Putin serves as
the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

Are they hiding under my bed?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed.  Putin serves as the
most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

Are they hiding under my bed?

Certainly not.

Nobody wants to hide there.

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

Being smart in Russia gets you a one way ticket to the gulag or a bullet in your
brain at the Czar's pleasure.

This is why Russians are so stupid. They've been killing off their best and
brightest for decades on account of suspected loyalty issues.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.

That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

Being smart in Russia gets you a one way ticket to the gulag or a bullet in your
brain at the Czar's pleasure.
This is why Russians are so stupid. They've been killing off their best and
brightest for decades on account of suspected loyalty issues.

Maybe you've been Governor too long and don't understand Russian mentality..but,

anyone suspected of loyalty issues should be shot on sight retgardless of their best brigntness.

Trump wants only Loyal people around him, not smarty pants.


If you're not loyal, I'd be happy to throw you and your mother out the window...women first of course.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.

And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.

Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.

Being smart in Russia gets you a one way ticket to the gulag or a bullet in your
brain at the Czar's pleasure.

Well, what you describe was Stalin.

But Stalin wasn't Russian. He was actually a professional bank robber
from Georgia.

They don't have a Czar in Russia neither.
...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Gronk

Post by The Starmaker
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise

Which he can't legally do as a civilian.

Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even
more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,
the US will stop supporting them. Otoh, if Russia refuses to engage in peace
talks, Trump will arm Ukraine to the teeth without restrictions.

Putin said on TV, that he wanted to start peace talks.

It were the Ukrainians, who rejected peace talks.

The Ukrainians wanted to 'win', but have no real chance against the
superpower Russia.

Whether or not the Nato had, that would be a good question.

I would think, that Russia is already in a very good strategic position
and even the entire Nato cannot push them back from there.

The reason:
Russia could sent many million soldiers very easily to the front, while
Nato troops had to be brought there.

This is difficult, because the Nato would need ships, but the Russians
control the Crimean peninsula and with it the entire Black Sea.

Now Nato troops could only be brought by ship over the Baltic Sea. But
that is very narrow, shallow and too far away.

So, in effect, Nato troops could only come from the west on land, e.g.
from Poland.

But that would be LOOOOOOONG (!!!) and dangerous (!!!!) walk, because
Ukraine is very large and flat and provides no mountains as protective
cover at all.

Travel by air is also not recommended, because Russia has state of the
art air defense systems.

The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.


TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.

Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade?

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.

Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade?

I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.

That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.

TH

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.

Both of them?  Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?

I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
TH

Some assembly required.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.

Both of them?  Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the
parade?

I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
TH

Some assembly required.

But tanks are very difficult to build.

I've heard, it would take two years to build one.

It it's also very expensive.

TH

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

That, and it might be a big slow target for various weapons systems to
engage with?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

That, and it might be a big slow target for various weapons systems to
engage with?

I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground
waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days....
All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets a
notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets the
tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser pointer
on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home in on? Not
to mention the anti tank mine fields galore.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

That, and it might be a big slow target for various weapons systems to
engage with?

I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground
waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days....
All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets a
notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets the
tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser pointer
on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home in on? Not
to mention the anti tank mine fields galore.

Tanks might be a fucking death trap in modern war?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

That, and it might be a big slow target for various weapons systems
to engage with?

I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground
waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days....
All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets
a notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets
the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser
pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home
in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine fields galore.

Tanks might be a fucking death trap in modern war?

The tank commander says, what is that buzzing sound? A fleet of drones
just dropped a bunch of anti tank bomblets on them. Kabooom, boom,
booommm, boom, boom... Tank = dead.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the
ground waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple
of days.... All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by.
The person gets a notification on his device... He pops out of the
hole and targets the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and
also holds a laser pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to
surface missiles to home in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine
fields galore.

Everybody but Russia knows you send infantry alongside tanks to
deal with enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a
new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but
tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.

But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually
changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!

Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it
does is throwing light artillery shells.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a
new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but
tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.
But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually
changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!
Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it
does is throwing light artillery shells.

An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask
the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks
which took no casualties at all.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
But tanks are very difficult to build.

As Russia has learned to its cost.

A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.

Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a
new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but
tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.
But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually
changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!
Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it
does is throwing light artillery shells.

An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask
the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks
which took no casualties at all.

As seen in the S tank, Sweden can make weapons for its strategies
and terrain.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.

Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade?

I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.

I have heard Elvis is alive.

Current estimates are about 1500 operational tanks and 3000 - 5000 old
tanks of unknown status and ranging in age of 40 to 75 years in boneyards.

A significant percentage of the old tanks require more resources to
refurbish than to build a new tank.

[Governor Swill]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Thomas Heger
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.

Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade?

I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.

They don't have 12,000 Armatas. In fact, they don't have 12,000 tanks. Anymore.
Ukraine has taken out at least a third that number so far.

Post by Thomas Heger
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.

But German tanks are actually operational!

[Bertietaylor]

We will eat you alive if you dare to think we are not made of peace

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Bertietaylor
We will eat you alive if you dare to think we are not made of peace

Exactly :) That's U.S. government talking to Americans and other people
around the world.

Great Satan.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Bertietaylor
We will eat you alive if you dare to think we are not made of peace

Exactly :) That's U.S. government talking to Americans and other people
around the world.
Great Satan.

Roachie, there are conflicting views about Satan between the Jews and
the Christians.

For the latter Satan is evil incarnate. The Jews going by what some
rabbis say think otherwise. To them Satan is Jehovah's loyal#1 follower
who tests God's believers with temptations and when they fail prosecute
those miserable creatures. Apparently some bad translation of Jewish
ancient texts caused this divergence.

What is the Muslim take of Satan?

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Bertietaylor
What is the Muslim take of Satan?

American billionaires.