[patriots] FW: NATO: The Russians Were Invincible!!!

From: "Chris Pead" <cpead@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Patriots JGroup" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:55:38 -0000

From: Monica Stone

Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Subject: NATO: The Russians Were Invincible!!!
To: Monica Stone

NATO: The Russians were simply invincible.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015 7:06

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

<http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/12/nato-the-russians-were-simply-invincible-3251076.html>
(Before It's News)

In June 2014, the Pentagon conducted a “table top” exercise – a sort of war
game between Russia and NATO. The scenario was Russian pressure on NATO member
Estonia and Latvia. Would NATO be able to defend those countries?

“The results were dispiriting,” Julia Ioffe
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18/exclusive-the-pentagon-is-preparing-new-war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/>
writes in Foreign Policy. Even if all US and NATO troops stationed in Europe
were dispatched to the Baltics – including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed
to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice – the US would lose.

“We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” explains a senior US general.
“Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air
missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery.”

The Russian ‘victory’ was not a one-off. The Americans conducted the exercise
as many as 16 times, under various scenarios, all favourable to NATO, always
with the same conclusion. The Russians were simply invincible.

In this backdrop, Turkey’s rash act of shooting down a Russian Air Force jet
portends grave tidings for NATO. Because Turkey is a NATO member, if the
Russian Air Force pounds the living daylight out of the Turks, at least in
theory all the other members of the US-led military bloc are treaty-bound to
come to its defence.

Although the chances that the Americans will risk New York for Istanbul are
smaller than small – which leaves a very nervous Turkey on its own – one can
never rule out the possibility of a NATO hothead wanting to attack Russia.

A nuclear exchange will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences for both
sides – and perhaps the entire planet – but there are certain factors that
could skew the fighting field in Russia’s favour.

Tactical warheads
<https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS95_u7k80lmVDWsB6cR_nmrIUHLtav2FXhjBhvcoqupca5fQXUIA>

Before the use of strategic weapons, Russia could cripple forward NATO bases
with tactical – or battlefield – nukes. Russian military doctrine emphasises
the use of small-yield nuclear weapons as a war fighting tool early on in a
conflict in order to stun and confuse NATO forces, impacting their ability to
think and act coherently.

After tactical nuclear artillery decimates forward deployed NATO military
troops, Russia could deliver small-yield warheads via intermediate range
missiles that could devastate the next line of military bases, while limiting
civilian casualties. At this point the US would be faced with the option of
retaliating with strategic weapons and face a devastating response from Moscow.
A good guess is the option won’t be used.

For, no American president would risk a single US city for a dozen European
ones. John F. Kennedy didn’t risk it in 1962 for the same reason – the loss of
even one city was too many.

State of US strategic forces
How reliable is the US Strategic Nuclear Command? If you are an American, you
won’t feel so reassured after reading that Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton both “reportedly lost the launch code cards that presidents are
expected to have on them at all times – Clinton for months, according to a
former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Carter allegedly
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/are-we-on-the-verge-of-a-nuclear-breakdown-20150618#ixzz3sqazU2qI>
sent his out with a suit to the cleaners”.

In any conflict – more so in a high stakes nuclear standoff – morale, training
and discipline are key factors. Russian officers who have the job of deciding
when and where to aim their nuclear missiles include PhD holders who are
required to think on their feet. On the other hand, American personnel who
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/16/us/military-nuclear-scandals-timeline/>
have the same role are beset with alcoholism, depression and cheating.

Nothing can sugar coat the crisis plaguing the US strategic forces. In October
2013, Major General Michael Carey, responsible for the command of 450 nuclear
missiles, was fired after drunken behaviour on a visit to Russia. Days earlier,
another military officer, Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, with high-level
responsibility for the country's nuclear arsenal, was relieved of his duties
after he was caught using counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino.

Think that’s frightening? Check this out. A US Air Force general who supported
the command mission to provide nuclear forces for the US Strategic Command was
an alcoholic.
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.groundreport.com/air-force-general-who-supported-the-command-mission-to-provide-nuclear-forces-for-the-u-s-strategic-command-was-alcoholic-drank-every-day-and-kept-vodka-in-his-desk/>
General David C. Uhrich kept a vodka bottle in his desk and repeatedly drank
on duty, so much so that another officer told investigators that “if he did not
have his alcohol, the wheels would come off”.

The rot has trickled down to US missileers who have a culture of cheating on
competency tests, endangering the readiness off American ICBMs. Again, in
February 2014, the US Navy revealed it was looking into allegations that
enlisted sailors
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://time.com/8530/are-you-smarter-than-a-nuclear-launch-officer/>
cheated on tests involving the nuclear reactors that power its submarines and
aircraft carriers.

The US strategic forces are also suffering from systemic neglect, with its ICBM
bases in North Dakota and Montana reporting “leaking roofs”.
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/are-we-on-the-verge-of-a-nuclear-breakdown-20150618#ixzz3sqeJlCxE>
The missileers, who work in blast-proof bunkers located 60 feet underground,
are forced to defecate in buckets and urinate in jugs, and bring it all back up
at the end of 24 hours. How ready these personnel will be when they have to
react to a Russian missile strike is questionable.

On the other hand, Russian Strategic Forces are treated as the very elites in
the military. The quality of Russian personnel can be deduced from the actions
of Russian strategic forces officer Lt Colonel Stanislav Petrov. On September
26, 1983, a Russian early-warning satellite indicated five US nuclear missile
launches. Tensions were high between Washington and Moscow after the downing of
a South Korean airliner weeks earlier, and Petrov had only minutes to respond.
With little additional information to go on, he deemed the readings a false
alarm, reasoning that “when people start a war, they don’t start it with only
five missiles”.

This is precisely why highly qualified personnel matter. When you’re placed
squarely in the cross hairs of the enemy’s nuclear missiles and you’re holed up
in a bunker 60 feet below the earth’s surface, then nervousness, insomnia and
depression are part of your daily life. Unable to cope, less educated personnel
will abuse alcohol and drugs and even exhibit criminal behaviour. On the other
hand, educated and motivated officers will keep their cool even in the event of
a thermonuclear showdown.

For, a nuclear war may not necessarily involve a quick exchange of ballistic
missiles.
<http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.amazon.com/War-Scare-Russia-America-Nuclear-ebook/dp/B000PY3EUO>
According to War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink, by Peter
Vincent Pry, Director of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum, the Russian Strategic
Forces are trained to “launch pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear strikes,
survive a hammer blow from a massive enemy nuclear attack, launch follow-on
nuclear strikes, and supervise military operations in a protracted nuclear war,
expected to last weeks or months”.

In such a drawn out, harrowing scenario, Russia’s nuclear warfare specialists
clearly have the edge.

Reflexive Control: Ultimate Weapon
Disinformation, camouflage and stratagem are some of the ways one can influence
the outcome of a war. The Russians have taken these ancient arts to another
level through the use of the theory of Reflexive Control (RC).

Developed by Russian military strategists in the 1960s, RC aims to convey
information to an opponent that would influence them to voluntarily make a
decision desired by the initiator of the action. It can be used against either
human or computer-based decision-making processors. Russia employs it not only
at the strategic and tactical levels in war but also in the geopolitical sphere.

Russian Army Major General M.D. Ionov was among the early proponents of RC,
having pursued it since the 1970s. In an article in 1995, he noted that the
objective of reflexive control is to force an enemy into making decisions that
lead to his defeat by influencing or controlling his decision-making process.

Ionov considers this a form of high art founded of necessity on an intimate
knowledge of human thinking and psychology, military history, the roots of the
particular conflict, and the capabilities of competing combat assets.

Timothy L. Thomas writes in the Journal of Slavic Studies: “In a war in which
reflexive control is being employed, the side with the highest degree of reflex
(the side best able to imitate the other side’s thoughts or predict its
behaviour) will have the best chances of winning. The degree of reflex depends
on many factors, the most important of which are analytical capability, general
erudition and experience, and the scope of knowledge about the enemy.”

If successfully achieved, reflexive control over the enemy makes it possible to
influence their combat plans, their view of the situation, and how they fight.
RC methods are varied and include camouflage (at all levels), disinformation,
encouragement, blackmail by force, and the compromising of various officials
and officers.

According to Robert C. Rasmussen of the Center for International Maritime
Security, “It is exactly this type of application of Reflexive Control that a
young Vladimir Putin would have learned in his early development at the 401st
KGB School and in his career as a KGB/FSB officer.”

Because every battle is first fought in the head before a bullet is fired on
the ground, Russia’s long experience with RC would be a key factor in its
existential struggle with the US.

Credit to in.rbth.com <http://in.rbth.com>

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2015/11/30/world-war-iii-why-rusia-will-bury-the-west_545807

http://nunezreport.blogspot.com/

[patriots] FW: NATO: The Russians Were Invincible!!!

Other related posts: