Russia' fearsome new Status-6 torpedo: America's nightmare

Post Reply New Topic

Weaken us from what? Global hegemony and one world government? Trying to scare people saying Putin wants to 'restore the Soviet Union' is nonsense because that implies that a restored Russia poses a threat to the United States and also that the US is never on the wrong side of an issue. The Obama administration supported terrorist insurrections where civil wars still rage today, they supported the 'moderate' Muslim Brotherhood which will soon be designated a terrorist organization by the US, remember ISIS uses American guns! It is Obama that rained down unaccountable and final judgement in these countries with drone strikes, the US bombs weddings and hospitals yet it acts as the morally superior. If Putin wants to weaken the US then what was Obama trying to do?

I think we should work with Russia as much as possible when it comes to our shared military interests and from that I think better overall relations can be forged, I dont see them as the enemy or someone who should be feared but rather a potential willing partner when our so many of our so called allies are freeloaders who hold us in disdain and expect the US to do everything. I support the foreign policy intended by our founders 'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling of alliances with none." I definitely believe in the doctrine of 'America First', we need to focus on solving our own problems not the entire world's and if Russia is willing to help where our interests overlap then they should be welcomed to with open arms. Trump's position on Russia is what sold me on his candidacy, I knew at that point he was independent of the malignant foreign policy losers that that have plagued the halls of congress and the White House for far too long.

And I think that opinion is recycled Russian propaganda and worth a little less than a bucket of warm spit.

I think General Mad Dog Mattis knows more about it than many and he holds a different view:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /96452298/

Just look at the defense budgets of NATO, where most do not even come close to the minimum benchmarks set. Canada's is less than half of what it is supposed to be but the US is supposed to be to this alliance forever? Do you support a more the double increase to Canada's defense spending?

General Mattis is a military man not a politician and the military does what the commander in chief says, I believe in Trump as a dealmaker and as someone independent some the foreign policy elite I have high hopes for what a meeting with Putin could bring. Remember, the US has way more leverage over Russia than the other way around and allowing old prejudices stop us from taking advantage of a potential willing partner in this 'War on Terror' when there have been so few would be tremendous opportunity wasted.

Mattis would be correct that Russia would pose one of our most utmost threats if we regard them as an enemey which is why I want a normalization of relations. Perhaps if NATO isn't a dinasaur relic it should welcome Russia into the fold because they need for an anti-Soviet alliance isn't applicable anymore, it shouldn't be surprising the Russia considers a military alliance seemingly targeted against them on their doorsteps to be a problem. If China is rising threat then Russia can be a hedge against them, I also believe the Japanese should reassert themselves as well given the security issues of the region.

Yes, I support Canada doubling defense spending to meet it's NATO obligations. The US, Europe and the world would be better off if all NATO members spent the full 2% of GDP on defense.

But it's unrealistic to expect all of them to get there fast--that's just reality. And some of them, like the Netherlands, are in the position both of spending too little and of making indispensable contributions to current forces.

Meanwhile, the Bannon/Putin mythology about poor abused Russia being backed into a corner by George Soros and the scheming liberals of the corrupt west is comprehensively refuted here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?

No, it's not refuted. I know history and have followed things in real time, I don't need anybody to tell what happened in Ukraine since I already know. Attributing whatever to Steve Bannon so beyond silly, do you believe CNN as gospel truth too? Did you believe the WMDs in Iraq? You're falling for another boogeyman, you've been duped. God bless those freedom fighting Ukrainian Nazis right? You are the consumer of propaganda and fake news, I've educated myself over the years.

Perhaps Canada and all of deadbeat NATO must hit the 2% or face ejection from the alliance? It really isn't too much to ask and it's not unrealistic, you guys might have to make some budgetary sacfices quick because the US should be done subsidizing your defense.

What magnitude of energy would be required to create a non-dispersing shockwave with that kind of energy transfer magnitude. Waves in water want to disperse. Is such a weapon even possible?

perhaps, only for americans. that is, peoples who have never been and very likely never will be, under direct russian control.

for eastern european peoples, it's a different story.

Russia doesn't cease to exist, the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic states should not dictate our relationship. One thing to keep an eye on is the games they're playing with Kaliningrad which certain voices have played around with the idea of taking away from Russia, the territory is essentially under siege with the only way to reach it being sea or air despite it's short distance from the rest of the country.

You guys?

It is unrealistic because economics. Also foolish because US geopolitical and economic interest.
Which is why no matter how much nonsense you hear about freeloaders, NATO will remain much as it is now, perhaps with pressure applied to get members to commit to increasing their funding over time.

I forget you're American, your location and gender on the side confuse me on who I am talking too. I don't think it's unrealistic to demand that these NATO 'partners' meet their obligations, I see their not meeting their defense benchmarks as them essentiallys stealing money from the US while our interests are not being met. The pressure applied is putting action to our words and acting independently from the inconsequential and irrelevant opinions, far too long have these countries taken advantage of the US. If NATO is to continue to have relevancy in the 21st century then I would like to work towards a future where Russia can become a member, that would maximize the geopolitical and economic interests enough that it might actually benefit the US instead of being a tremendous burden. That isn't foreign propaganda, these are the principles on which our country was founded.

This stuff about a Russia is sheer fantasy.

People in Europe barely tolerate being part of an American Hegemony because the Americans give them so much freedom. No one is under similar illusions about Russia -- People in the east just got out from under Russian occupation and they don't want to go back. Unless Putin changes course radically, something he probably cannot do for domestic reasons, no such happy alliance is in the offing.

The fluff about stealing money from the US is just nonsense. The US put money into Europe after WW2 because it was in our interest and continue to do so because it's still in our interest. If NATO had not existed, would our defense expenditures have been lower during the cold war? Would the interests in the Pentagon procurement system not be pushing for the F-35 and LCS and other overpriced programs? The whole idea is ridiculous. NATO is not any kind of burden. It saves a ton of money on assets we would otherwise have to supply ourselves to pursue our geopolitical interests in the face of opposition from other major powers.

That we are the first among equals in that system is not a burden.

NATO statements on these issues, from the link I provided earlier:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Why is it fantasy? You probably said Trump being president was fantasy, I am not the only person that believes what I believe so what you think is fantasy might soon be reality. I look forward to coming meetings between Trump and Putin, I believe only good can come out of it.

I don't see it being 'the first among equals' relationship, it's the US and everybody else so what the US decides ultimately goes. Maybe if other countries met their obligations then we could be more inclined to listen to their opinion. We do not live for the self interests of eastern Europe, I think partnership rather than conflict with Russia is a much better option than heeding to antiquated interests of the Cold War. The world did not stop turning in 1945, maintaining the old order of things and allowing this entangling of alliances from pursuing mutually beneficial relations is self defeating and unsustainable in the long run.

It is possible things are on the up and up, Europe has some important elections this year so we'll see if they'll embrace the new order or cling to the old. The wheels are already in motion.

How to win friends and influence people, eh?

I can certainly see why Putin would be an attractive partner to someone with this way of looking at things.

So the existing NATO structure where all the countries vote on things will be replaced with "Do what the American President says or else" -- Yeah, I'm sure that European nationalists and others would embrace that.

"Please, Mr. Yankee, tell us what to do!"

You can't have an equal partnership in what is in actuality a protectorate, I would prefer a relationship where is was a mutually beneficial and I think that is possible with some of the countries in NATO but I have no interest in maintaining and expanding empire that we are obligated to defend. Other countries have neglected the relationship and put the burden entirely on the US, they haven't furfilled their part of te deal.

As long Turkey is a member of NATO the human rights/democracy arguments against Russia really don't hold any water because if you can justify a strategic relation with with President Erdogan then why not President Putin? European nationalists seem pretty fond of Trump FWIW, not surprising since European leaders haven't served their own people well either but like I said things appear to be changing.

No, not because of long defunct Pease AFB,Portsmouth is home of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.