Could the Us spark a war!

[superkartracer]

Russia losing money and blames bush etc

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe...

[Badgerboy]

Cruise missiles and the like do have a shelf life, better to fire them off in a orgy of a PR exercise than scrapping them.

[Fittster]

China and Russia have a lot to learn about capitalism!

The value of your investment may go up as well as down…

[welshbikerduck]

It is all chest beating.

America said that if Georgia joined NATO and was invaded Nato would act immediately as it is not a talking shop (dig at UN)

So Russia now wants to show Nato it has the means to play. This could end up as the cold war 2 but i doubt it would ever lead to a war as all sides know the cost would be massive to both the victor and the loser. Infact this would probably be more harmful to Russia as it has only just started to get it's economy ticking over. Now it wants to spend on it's millitary again, have they forgotten what happened to them the last time.

[superkartracer]

welshbikerduck said:

It is all chest beating.

America said that if Georgia joined NATO and was invaded Nato would act immediately as it is not a talking shop (dig at UN)

So Russia now wants to show Nato it has the means to play. This could end up as the cold war 2 but i doubt it would ever lead to a war as all sides know the cost would be massive to both the victor and the loser. Infact this would probably be more harmful to Russia as it has only just started to get it's economy ticking over. Now it wants to spend on it's millitary again, have they forgotten what happened to them the last time.

What happens if the US is crippled by this bank lark?

[digger_R]

It would be an easy fix to issues with the financial markets

[welshbikerduck]

superkartracer said:

welshbikerduck said:

It is all chest beating.

America said that if Georgia joined NATO and was invaded Nato would act immediately as it is not a talking shop (dig at UN)

So Russia now wants to show Nato it has the means to play. This could end up as the cold war 2 but i doubt it would ever lead to a war as all sides know the cost would be massive to both the victor and the loser. Infact this would probably be more harmful to Russia as it has only just started to get it's economy ticking over. Now it wants to spend on it's millitary again, have they forgotten what happened to them the last time.

What happens if the US is crippled by this bank lark?

Good point but it's weapons are decades ahead of anyone else which it already has bought and paid for, so no need to for expensive R&D as they have been proven already. Russias weapons are dated from the 70's and 80's at best.

[ihatesissycars]

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces how exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Edited cos I'm a mongtard.

Edited by ihatesissycars on Monday 6th October 16:17

[Plotloss]

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces who exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Going through Europe would be the long way round.

Only 30 miles seperates the US and Russia...

[ihatesissycars]

Plotloss said:

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces who exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Going through Europe would be the long way round.

Only 30 miles seperates the US and Russia...

But their main bulk of forces are quite a distance of that gap aren't they?

[anonymous-user]

Thoroughly good and believable read - in fact i might read it again

[Asterix]

Fittster said:

China and Russia have a lot to learn about capitalism!

The value of your investment may go up as well as down…

They got rather a rude awakening out here in the UAE when the bourses had a correction.

They thought that it would continue to climb sky high. Took their wedding funds, took out huge loans, borrowed, begged and stole to get money to stick into shares...

...and then it all came crashing down - what did they do?

Complain that no one had explained that shares could go down so it was the Government's fault and they should bail them out.

Got to love the ignorance/arrogance/fukwittery of some people.

[Plotloss]

ihatesissycars said:

Plotloss said:

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces who exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Going through Europe would be the long way round.

Only 30 miles seperates the US and Russia...

But their main bulk of forces are quite a distance of that gap aren't they?

Not sure.

The US has subs on the West Coast at Alameda and in Seattle and thats not a million miles from the Alaskan coastline.

[Taita]

digimeistter said:

Thoroughly good and believable read - in fact i might read it again

+1 A truly fantastic book.

[bob1179]

Plotloss said:

ihatesissycars said:

Plotloss said:

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces who exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Going through Europe would be the long way round.

Only 30 miles seperates the US and Russia...

But their main bulk of forces are quite a distance of that gap aren't they?

Not sure.

The US has subs on the West Coast at Alameda and in Seattle and thats not a million miles from the Alaskan coastline.

"Can you tell me where the nuclear wessels are? The nuclear wessels at Al a meeda?"



Anyway, these Soviet invasion maps, is there a linky to them? I'd love to see them.

As a side note, I was at the V&A yesterday and there is a Cold War exhibition on that I found really interesting as I have a huge interest in Cold War history. Well worth a look if anybody is in that part of London with a couple of hours to kill.

:

[Snoggledog]

Call me a pessimist but if we had a war all this stuff about global recession etc will soon be forgotten.

[Simpo Two]

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces how exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Interesting - I suppose it depends what the objective is. You can move an army of millions across land, but not across oceans. So you have to use air power, or missiles, and whilst you can destroy lots of stuff, you can't conquer countries that way - eventually you have to do it at ground level.

I can see Russia attempting to rebuild/recapture the USSR but not further.

[welshbikerduck]

Simpo Two said:

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces how exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Interesting - I suppose it depends what the objective is. You can move an army of millions across land, but not across oceans. So you have to use air power, or missiles, and whilst you can destroy lots of stuff, you can't conquer countries that way - eventually you have to do it at ground level.

I can see Russia attempting to rebuild/recapture the USSR but not further.

That in itself would cause problems as some are now members of NATO

[Jimbeaux]

Plotloss said:

ihatesissycars said:

If there was a world war but one without nukes which would leave things to land, sea and air forces who exactly would that play out?

Would Russia move accross europe hoping the yanks would meet them somewhere around here or would they go straight to the yanks?

Daft question I know one that always interested me ever since seeing the Russian invasion maps of the UK.

Going through Europe would be the long way round.

Only 30 miles seperates the US and Russia...

I mentioned that Palin brought this fact up and was soundly stamped a fool by the PH resident lefts.

[Jimbeaux]

Gazboy said:

Is the USA still a self sufficient country?

If need be, yes; in both energy, food, and raw resources. While not the most desirable path, it is possible.