see url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation
Yes it is an interesting document. However, if the report had come out
with a peaceful, non-aggressive outcome, I would have been pleasantly
surprised...if not shocked. The company, though non-profit, is funded
by the US state, the Rand Corporation does supply military reports to
the US Airforce, it is funded too by private US endowments, and its CEO
and his family has connexions with the arms industry. Not that this
should detract from the independence of the report of course. I suppose
that nation states do have to conduct war-gaming exercises too. The
unthinkable has to be thought about, played around with, toyed with,
tried out small scale and large scale, testing boundaries for weakness
of all kinds, on sea, air and land, to economic and pyschological game
playing, to encouraging and sowing internal divisions, between groups
and classes and undermining and subverting strategies. Military forces
must be kept up to scratch, particularly in the role of offensive
defence, pre-emptive strikes, consequences for the military power, and
rarely these days, the effects of war on the civil population.
Who owns the Baltic? Who uses the Baltic? Who needs the Baltic? All
those littoral states which surround it of course. Without it, with the
exception of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, none of them would be able to
get access to the North Sea, the Atlantic and the rest of the world's
oceans.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all liberated from the Soviet phantom
though still within the Russian sphere of influence and living very
happily under the capitalist democratic yolk. How convenient it would be
if we could block off the Baltic so that the Russian fleet couldn't use
it. Then we could do the same in the Black Sea...and Bingo, once again
we would rule the waves, no Russians in the Mediteranean. How peaceful
the world would become under US and UK seafaring leadership. Make sure
that the Russian fleet is stuck in the ice on its northern shores. And
then, if the Russians tried to fight their way out, they would be to
blame, and the west would come out smelling of roses.
Much better though, to treat the Baltic as the Aboriginies treated
Australia for over 100,000 years....with respect. One of their more
"primitive" beliefs is that we belong to the land, rather than it
belonging to us. We pass on, whilst the land remains for future use.
Ownership, particularly private has merit as a modern myth created and
preserved by those who believe in it because they gain from owning most
of it.
On another front, we have the Chinese, slowly making big economic and
financial moves in the continents of Africa and South America, as well
as penetrating the US and European markets with their finance and
cheaper and high quality goods, such as I.T. and computers and
software. China owns America's debt, they purchased it in a moment of
madness, thinking that it would give them more influence in the
international arena. Signing deals and contracts with poor and
sovereign countries, supplying the finance for industrialisation, for
manufacturing and distribution, for oil and gas, investing huge amounts
in industry, and without bothering too much about getting the human
rights side of it right, unlike the US and the West who like to make it
"democratic capitalist" first, which usually finishes up in some kind of
coup.
They challenge too, the might of the US seapower in the open oceans
of the Pacific, and the penetration of their airspace, of outer and
inner space with their increasing and modern navy and airforce, with
their new and advanced technology and communications systems; just as
the Americans, the British and the Russians do, testing up to the rim,
like kids on dodgem cars at the fair. The US has to defend its
interests in both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean regions, whilst the
Chinese have only one ocean border. The US has a mission to police the
world in American government interests. The US has to defend its
markets and strategic aims in Europe, at great cost. Cultural and
heritage organisations supply funding, and training and seminars to
educate new ruling classes, budding middle classes in ex Soviet
satellite countries, so that they introduce governments which are more
conducive to US and western ways of doing trade and conducting
commercial activities. Wargaming occurs on many fronts. This not to
deny that Russia or China does the same, such are the needs, desires and
wants of nation states.
And how futile, or how relevant are nuclear weapons in all of this?
Shall firing nuclear weapons from either US or UK nuclear
submarines,prevent or stop the Russian Bear from invading the
Baltic...if it so wishes. Shall the might of all the countries of Nato
prevent such a scenario...Of course increasing the size of Nato,
increasing its military power, spending lots of spondoolix on rapid
deployment forces, tanks and big guns and rockets and mobile tactical
nuclear weapons will all help to contain the problem if not solve it.
At what cost to the native civilian populations though, less on social
security, pensions, health, education for the masses...finance after all
is limited, capital is limited, wealth is limited. Remember that Nato
was set up to counteract the Soviet threat, now it is used to contain
the Russian threat.
Who will win and who will lose? And what will they win and what will
they lose? China is an entity which has lasted many thousands of years
longer than the USA. It was thousands of years old, whilst the native
Americans still lived off the land and on the land, and the buffalo was
king. Chinese dynasties have collapsed and been reborn so many times,
never quite vanishing into the mudpile of history, and always returning,
anew and refreshed and inventive, vibrant and creative, built on the
wreckage of the old. The USA has only been in existence a few hundred
years, and has reached its present political, economic and military
might, but how much longer before the Chinese and the Indians and other
huge nations catch up and surpass it...one wonders?
Anyways, what is an extra $2.7 billion spent on Nato compared to an
annual £1 trillion spent on US defence? Think of the benefits for
Europe, especially if the payment can be agreed by the European States
and spent in the US armaments industry. What a no-brainer...:-)
ATB
Dougie.
On 06/02/2016 08:36, Joe Products wrote:
Here is an interesting document:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf
via The browser
Wargaming The Defence Of The Baltics
<http://thebrowser.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fb92db2dc322b2f98c45aaac9&id=9631286564&e=84a3c61520>
David Shlapak & Michael Johnson | Rand | 4th February 2016
What would happen if Russia invaded the Baltic States tomorrow? It would succeed. Russia could take Riga and Tallin within 60 hours, whatever the efforts at defence, leaving Nato "a limited number of options, all bad". The only sure way to deter Russia would be for Nato to move at least three heavy armoured brigades into Latvia and Estonia, at a cost of $2.7bn annually. And that would be cheap, compared to war (PDF) (9,080 words)
